PDA

View Full Version : Is it wrong for a woman to cut her hair? 1 Cor 11



thewizster
Apr 15th 2009, 09:06 PM
The first part of 1 Cor 11 talks about submitting to authority and gets into men and womens hair as a covering. Does this mean that men cannot have long hair and women cannot cut their hair?

Some people have told me that is what it means I would like some feedback from some of you...

David Taylor
Apr 15th 2009, 09:18 PM
No it doesn't.

Paul is explaining the customs of his day in light of the relationship between men to Christ and women to men.

The KJV makes it difficult to get a clear picture on what's going on. I usually go with the KJV but in this case, it's easier to see it from a more modern version....read this version from the Message....very easy to see the point Paul was making.

I Corinthians11:2-16
"All actual authority stems from Christ. In a marriage relationship, there is authority from Christ to husband, and from husband to wife. The authority of Christ is the authority of God. Any man who speaks with God or about God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of Christ, dishonors Christ. In the same way, a wife who speaks with God in a way that shows a lack of respect for the authority of her husband, dishonors her husband. Worse, she dishonors herself—an ugly sight, like a woman with her head shaved. This is basically the origin of these customs we have of women wearing head coverings in worship, while men take their hats off. By these symbolic acts, men and women, who far too often butt heads with each other, submit their "heads" to the Head: God. Don't, by the way, read too much into the differences here between men and women. Neither man nor woman can go it alone or claim priority. Man was created first, as a beautiful shining reflection of God—that is true. But the head on a woman's body clearly outshines in beauty the head of her "head," her husband. The first woman came from man, true—but ever since then, every man comes from a woman! And since virtually everything comes from God anyway, let's quit going through these "who's first" routines. Don't you agree there is something naturally powerful in the symbolism—a woman, her beautiful hair reminiscent of angels, praying in adoration; a man, his head bared in reverence, praying in submission? I hope you're not going to be argumentative about this."

Tomlane
Apr 15th 2009, 10:48 PM
David Taylor, God has never to my knowledge ever made a commandment in regards to culture or regards to the culture of the times. God's word is just as relevant today as it was back then for man's nature is still the same; sinful.

Here is an example of a command from God that is still in force today as ever but so few walk in it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 *¶The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I've heard the same argument from lady charismatic preachers who wore pants as well and their hair look like a man from behind as well.

Tomlane

keck553
Apr 15th 2009, 11:04 PM
Marriage is sacred, as it is an allusion to the Unity of the Father and His Son (both are described as 'echad', or complex unity) so the definition of man and woman in every respect is essential to the sanctity of God's purpose.

Vhayes
Apr 15th 2009, 11:16 PM
If the culture of the time doesn't play a role in things, then what do we do with this verse?

I Corinthians 15
29 - Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Last time I checked only LDS baptize for the dead - so if women shouldn't cut their hair due to what God says being true for all time - we should maybe outta think about baptizing for the dead. No? Hmmmmmm - somehow I thought not.

thewizster
Apr 16th 2009, 02:26 AM
David Taylor, God has never to my knowledge ever made a commandment in regards to culture or regards to the culture of the times. God's word is just as relevant today as it was back then for man's nature is still the same; sinful.

Here is an example of a command from God that is still in force today as ever but so few walk in it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 *¶The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I've heard the same argument from lady charismatic preachers who wore pants as well and their hair look like a man from behind as well.

Tomlane

In regards to the referenced 1 corinthians 11 there is no command in this scripture that I see. Looks like he is trying to settle some marital issues.

Toymom
Apr 16th 2009, 02:27 AM
1 Cor 11 is not about haircuts, but about head covering and taking Christ as our head. I got a haircut yesterday. It is still "long", but shorter than it was obviously. And I still take Christ as my head. 1 Cor 11:5 does indicate that to shave a woman's head is shameful to her, but it does not say getting a trim is bad.

thewizster
Apr 16th 2009, 02:43 AM
David Taylor, God has never to my knowledge ever made a commandment in regards to culture or regards to the culture of the times. God's word is just as relevant today as it was back then for man's nature is still the same; sinful.

Here is an example of a command from God that is still in force today as ever but so few walk in it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 *¶The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I've heard the same argument from lady charismatic preachers who wore pants as well and their hair look like a man from behind as well.

Tomlane

Be careful of trying to be right before God by upholding all the law and the prophets. This can only be done through the Cross of Christ, and not by any works you can do. Paul warned the Galatians of the same thing. There is only one who has been able to keep all the law and prophets and He died on a cross.

The command we all should be striving to have is love. This is the greatest of all commandments and through it come all the law and prophets.

moonglow
Apr 16th 2009, 02:58 AM
I have neck and back problems ..I would risk injury to my neck to grow my hair very long. Its very thick and heavy and literally throws my neck out in which I am then in alot of pain and dizzy. Kind of hard to function very well like this. I don't have it cut really short by any means, I just cannot have it long like I used too. And David is right...also in these times prostitute shaved their heads..this was a custom and why in the first part of that passage it says its a shame for a women to shave their heads. We don't see too many bald hookers around these days.

And men can have long hair too.

David Guzik's Commentaries (http://www.studylight.org/com/guz/view.cgi?book=1co&chapter=011)
6. (13-16) Appealing to experience, nature, common sense, and apostolic authority.

Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

a. Judge among yourselves: Paul appeals to something the Corinthian Christians should be able to figure out on their own.

b. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Here, Paul speaks to those Christians who come from a Jewish environment. In the Jewish community, even men would cover their heads while praying. It was therefore inconceivable for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered. Their own experience taught them that women should observe the custom of the head covering when the church meets.

c. Does not even nature itself teach: In both Jewish and Greek cultures, short hair was common for men. Therefore it was a dishonor for a man to wear long hair, because it was considered feminine.

i. From as long as we have known, women have generally worn their hair longer than men. In some cultures and at some times, men have worn their hair longer than others, but no matter how long men have worn their hair, women have always worn their hair longer.

ii. Based on this verse, many people have thought that it is a sin for a man to wear long hair or, at least hair that is considered long by the culture. But long hair in itself can be no sin; after all, Paul apparently had long hair for a time in Corinth as a part of a vow (Acts 18:18). But, the vow would not have meant anything if long hair was the norm; that's what Paul is getting at!

iii. While it is true that it is wrong for a man to take the appearance of a woman (Deuteronomy 22:5), longer hair on a man is not necessarily an indication of this. It is far better for most preachers to be concerned about the length of their sermons instead of the length of people's hair!

d. Her hair is given to her for a covering: Because women wear their hair longer than men, Paul thinks of this longer hair as "nature's veil. So, if nature has given women long hair as a covering, that in itself points to their need to be covered (according to the ancient Corinthian custom).

e. If anyone seem to be contentious, we have no such custom: In this appeal to apostolic authority, Paul is telling the Corinthian Christians to not be contentious especially because the other churches of God have adopted their custom according to God's truth.
*********************
Women's pants look nothing like men's pants and women's shirts look nothing like men's shirts. So I don't think women wearing pants means they are dressing like men by any means at all actually.

God bless

CommanderRobey
Apr 16th 2009, 03:03 AM
The first part of 1 Cor 11 talks about submitting to authority and gets into men and womens hair as a covering. Does this mean that men cannot have long hair and women cannot cut their hair?

Some people have told me that is what it means I would like some feedback from some of you...
How long is long? How short is short? Scripture does not say women cannot cut their hair, only that her hair is her glory.

While Scripture states that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, it does not define what length is considered as being too long.

bagofseed
Apr 16th 2009, 04:44 AM
What is the heart behind this topic?
How can this be about love towards others?

What is the spiritual lesson being taught in the physical example of long and short hair?

Could the modern trend against such biblical standards have led to today's gender confusion?

CommanderRobey
Apr 16th 2009, 04:59 AM
Since the Scripture does not give a definite on how long a man's hair could be or how short a woman's hair could be, how does one judge the length?

At what length does the hair become a shame on a man or a woman? I find no Biblical definition as to the exact measurement it is supposed to be.

Veretax
Apr 16th 2009, 12:40 PM
Moonglow,

This is my thought as well moonglow. It is not so much an absolute that men's hair be X length, and womans be Y length, as that Paul wanted the Corinthians to be distinct from the worldly population that partook of the mystery religions. It was not uncommon if memory serves for the preistesses in some of these temples to cut their hair during their 'ceremony'.

The ultimate point of Paul is that a man and a woman should be distinguishable from each other, which if you go back to leviticus and numbers is what Moses wrote, not that a man should only wear pants, and a woman only dresses, but that they should not dress or groom themselves in such a way so that the may appear as the opposite gender.

Slug1
Apr 16th 2009, 12:49 PM
The first part of 1 Cor 11 talks about submitting to authority and gets into men and womens hair as a covering. Does this mean that men cannot have long hair and women cannot cut their hair?

Some people have told me that is what it means I would like some feedback from some of you...As has been brought out in this thread by a few. The scripture is about the customs of Corinth. Paul then ends this description with a verse that so many fail to include when they use this scripture out of context...

16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

So read in context, NO, we don't conform to these customs where in Corinth it "was" a shame for a man to have long hair or a woman to have short hair.

thewizster
Apr 16th 2009, 01:05 PM
What is the heart behind this topic?
How can this be about love towards others?


My intent with starting this thread was to get feedback from others about this issue. I think your right about love toward others. But this issue confuses many because some teach that if a women cuts her hair she is going to hell.

At most in this passage I see a man or women having shame. If my wife shaved her head, yes it would be shameful and embarrassing for her. But, shame is a far cry from sin. Jesus even experienced shame on the cross (Heb 12:2) but was spotless concerning sin.

Study about the Nazirite vow. Men and women were not allowed to cut there hair during this time. At the end of the vow they were required to shave their head in the outer courtyard of the temple. Also, if it were a sin for a man to have long hair then where would all the Nazirites like Samson stand with God? Any vow which includes sin would never be acceptable before God.

-SEEKING-
Apr 16th 2009, 01:05 PM
Is it wrong for a woman to cut her hair?

To be as brief and simple as possible.................No.

moonglow
Apr 16th 2009, 03:53 PM
What is the heart behind this topic?
How can this be about love towards others?

What is the spiritual lesson being taught in the physical example of long and short hair?

Could the modern trend against such biblical standards have led to today's gender confusion?

I think it would be really going to the extreme to think hair length causes gender confusion. The length of hair has nothing to do with that at all. That is a much deeper issue. Beside that gender confusion was going on during the OT times and the NT times.


Veretax : Moonglow,

This is my thought as well moonglow. It is not so much an absolute that men's hair be X length, and womans be Y length, as that Paul wanted the Corinthians to be distinct from the worldly population that partook of the mystery religions. It was not uncommon if memory serves for the preistesses in some of these temples to cut their hair during their 'ceremony'.

The ultimate point of Paul is that a man and a woman should be distinguishable from each other, which if you go back to leviticus and numbers is what Moses wrote, not that a man should only wear pants, and a woman only dresses, but that they should not dress or groom themselves in such a way so that the may appear as the opposite gender.

Agreed. The Jews believed that the men and most certainly the women should have their heads covered during prayer...Paul was trying to get these people out of worrying about these customs in saying the woman's hair was her covering...no need for a veil...and the men should not cover their heads since Christ was their covering.

Maybe I have watched too many movies but I don't know if men in the OT or even the NT wore pants actually. Always thought they all wore robes, similar to how we see people still dressed in the middle east. :hmm: Jesus' robe was gambled for as He hung on the cross...no mention of pants. I have no idea who invented pants for men or dresses for women to start with!

I live in KS and let me tell you its pretty difficult to hold down a shirt, carry groceries and hang onto the hand of a small child at the same time due to our strong winds here....:rolleyes: I would rather wear pants (well jeans actually) on those days then to flash someone by wearing a dress...:blush: I really don't know how those Mennonite ladies do it...

God bless

Veretax
Apr 16th 2009, 07:54 PM
moonglow,

What i was referring too was in the OT Law where Moses wrote that a man should not adorn himself with things that are associated with the opposite gender, same with females. It would seem to me that this point, and being separate and different from customs that would make people think we are part of the World would be the true points Paul is trying to make.

godsgirl
Apr 16th 2009, 09:21 PM
David Taylor, God has never to my knowledge ever made a commandment in regards to culture or regards to the culture of the times. God's word is just as relevant today as it was back then for man's nature is still the same; sinful.

Here is an example of a command from God that is still in force today as ever but so few walk in it.

Deuteronomy 22:5 *¶The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

I've heard the same argument from lady charismatic preachers who wore pants as well and their hair look like a man from behind as well.

Tomlane


HMMM< when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written both men and women wore "skirts". No pants mentioned at all. I don't think a case can be made from these verses concerning "pants" for women-what was an abomination was men passing themselves off as women and visa versa--same thing goes today. Now it's called "cross dressing"--still just as much an abomination.

Tomlane
Apr 16th 2009, 09:39 PM
I've noticed when ever I've mentioned Deuteronomy 22:5, most women become an expert on the clothing worn back in biblical times. I think that is amazing. I wonder if the Lord will buy that story? Some times men also become historical experts on clothing during biblical times and why this scripture doesn't apply for today.

Tomlane :rolleyes: :spin:

CommanderRobey
Apr 16th 2009, 09:42 PM
HMMM< when Deuteronomy 22:5 was written both men and women wore "skirts". No pants mentioned at all. I don't think a case can be made from these verses concerning "pants" for women-what was an abomination was men passing themselves off as women and visa versa--same thing goes today. Now it's called "cross dressing"--still just as much an abomination.
Actually, if one studies out the Hebrew, one will find something interesting about Deuteronomy 22:5


Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment (simlah): for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.
The word 'pertaineth' refers to battle dress. Men were forbidden to try to appear as being feminine to escape the call to war and women were forbidden to take the male's clothes in order to go into war.


Simlah -- perhaps by permutation for the feminine of 5566 (through the idea of a cover assuming the shape of the object beneath); a dress, especially a mantle:--apparel, cloth(-es, -ing), garment, raiment.
The man was not to wear a woman's 'simlah'. This was a garment, that when worn gave the man the appearance of having the shape of the woman.

There were garments that were made specifically for men and for women even in Moses' day. And, while it was evident which gender the individual garments were made for, when one wore those garments, it was not easy to determine the gender of the wearer of such garments.

Pants were never worn in the Word of God (neither by men, nor women). Breeches were mentioned, but they were an undergarment that was worn from the hips to just above the knee. Only the Priest was said to be permitted to wear these.

Pants today that women wear (generally) are specifically made to fit the woman's form, and the majority of men would be hard-pressed to fit comfortably in them. Close examination of women's pants reveals that they are made specifically for women and thus, cannot be in the category of things God does not permit them to wear (unless they are so tight they cause men to lust).

Men's pants again, are made especially to fit the male frame.

If it is a sin for women to wear pants, then it is just as much a sin for men to wear them because women can see and lust just as much as a man would lust after a woman wearing pants.

moonglow
Apr 17th 2009, 05:12 PM
I've noticed when ever I've mentioned Deuteronomy 22:5, most women become an expert on the clothing worn back in biblical times. I think that is amazing. I wonder if the Lord will buy that story? Some times men also become historical experts on clothing during biblical times and why this scripture doesn't apply for today.

Tomlane :rolleyes: :spin:

And what exactly are we trying to sell to the Lord?

Men and women today, though while dressed differently then they did in the OT, and the NT, clearly have clothes made for each gender. (as they did then also). Men go to the side of the store where it says "Men's clothes" and women go to the side that says "Women's Clothes". Our clothes have to be made differently for one thing as CommanderRobey pointed out...our very body structure is different. Not too mention women like flowers and other colorful designs on their cloths and men usually don't care for such things. Just looking at clothes in a garage sale, for instance, its pretty easy to tell the difference between men and women's clothes...boys and girl clothes. Even baby clothes you can tell which gender the clothes are for.

I sure don't see women dressing like men around here and there is only one guy here in town that likes to dress in women's clothes and shoes then rides his bike all over town...he also wears make up...kind of smeared on his face. Everyone knows he has some pretty major problems...I pray for him alot. I am actually surprised he hasn't been beaten up given the red neck type of town this is. That certainly wouldn't help him though...only God can do that and heal whatever is so broken there in his spirit. He does not remotely look like a woman either when dressed like this either...

Other then him...all the men I have ever seen wear men's clothes. I have never been confused as to what gender someone is by the clothes they wear. Well with one exception. There was a person that used to work at K-mart that had a name on their name tag that could have been for a women or man...that had no real body figure and their hair cut was so neutral you couldn't tell if this person was a man or a women. Having to wear a K-mart shirt and K-mart pants didn't help either...and he or she never wore makeup to give anyone a clue. This was a very gender neutral person indeed! Until one day...HE grew a mustache...(of course I have seen women with mustaches...:hmm:)

God bless

thewizster
Apr 20th 2009, 12:28 PM
I have been studying this some more and here is what I have come up with.

In Genesis 3 we read about the very first clothing for people. In verse 7 they realized they were naked and sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons (KJV).

Then in verse 21 God apparently did not approve of there fig clothing.


21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

The clothing for both Adam and Eve was so similar that the same word could be used to describe it, coats. The New KJV translates it as Tunics. Either way the same word could be used to describe both of their clothing. This is what God made for them and God did not describe a different set of clothing for each person. I don't think God was setting up mankind for abomination from the very first by making their clothing similar.

So what was a tunic? Let's look at history:


From Wikipedia: A tunic is any of several types of clothing for the body, with or without sleeves, and of various lengths reaching from the hips to the ankles. The name derives from the Latin tunica commonly worn by both men and women in Ancient Rome, which in turn is based on earlier Greek garments.

My question also would be this: If this was a salvation issue then why didn't Paul mention this in his writings to the Romans (or anyone else for that fact)? Roman men and women would have been wearing similar clothing by wearing these tunics.

Instead of reading a private interpretation of one verse of scripture and building a doctrine on it we should rather study all the scriptures in context and we will see a clear picture of what Deuteronomy 22:5 is saying.

I think the issues of women cutting hair and clothing have been well addressed and documented in this thread. Clearly women wearing pants is not an issue with God who looks not on the outer person but He looks at the heart.

thewizster
May 17th 2009, 11:10 PM
You will have to excuse me for posting such a long message. A friend of mine received this in an email. Teaching that it is wrong for a women to cut her hair. My friend has received some rather harsh treatment from some people because she cut her hair.

I feel this issue has been clearly addressed in this forum but the content of this email raises some things that have not been addressed here. And since these things are being taught openly in some churches I feel it needs to be put into the public light and discussed.

I would like for some of you to look at this and please comment. Thank You...

------- Email Below ------

Ezekiel 28 talks about a war being waged in the spirit realm about holiness. Lucifer had a very special place of anointed ministry, and his primary function was being a covering cherub. The cherubim, seem to be particularly assigned to the responsibility of guarding the glory of God. Lucifer, being the anointed cherub, was set forth as the chief guardian of the glory of God. Ezekiel 28:14 says that God put him in this place of delegated authority. He was honored above all of the other angels, so what could have been the root of his rebellion? Ezekiel 28:17 declares. “Thine heart was lifted up because of thine beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness…” Vanity caused him to become so proud of his outward magnificence that it began to overshadow his relationship with his Maker. When Lucifer was cast out, he lost his covering. God delegated Lucifer’s guardianship of the glory of God to the woman. I Corinthians 11:10 and 15 says “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. But if a woman have long hair, it is a GLORY to her: for her hair is given her for a COVERING.” So to this day, Satan tempts mankind, especially women over and over to tamper with the covering because it symbolizes to him everything he lost.
A woman’s hair signals to the spirit world whether she is in rebellion or in submission. The angels can tell by looking at her. That is why it is so important for us not to even trim our hair. The purpose is not to have long hair, it is to be in submission to the word of God by not cutting your hair… at all. What is one of the first thing a woman does when she backslides? She cuts her hair, losing her glory just like Lucifer did when he was cast out. She is now separated from God just like he is.

The only other place that you see the covering, the angels, and the glory mentioned together is in the Ark of the Covenant. The mercy seat covered the law. The cherubim, (the angels) were assigned to guard the glory, covered the mercy seat and were actually attached to it. Dwelling in the midst of the cherubim was the glory of God. If ever the covering, the mercy seat was removed from the Ark, the angels were removed with it. They were attached to the covering. The glory, mercy, and presence of God were removed as well, leaving only naked law, no mercy. To forfeit the covering was to forfeit divine protection! The woman, as God created her, is a picture of the Church – the Law on the inside; the covering of her submission to that law on the outside; the mercy and the angels covering her; and the glory and the presence of God dwelling over, around, and in the midst of her! The woman’s uncut hair is a part of what makes her visible and recognizable as the covered bride of Jesus Christ.

The protection is not only for the woman but also for her family! Ezekiel 10 indicates that wherever the glory was the cherubim was as well. In verses 18 and 19, when the glory of the Lord departed from the house or the temple, the cherubim lifted up their wings and departed also. They were committed to the glory! We are the temple of the Holy Ghost and we have the glory as long as we are in submission through obedience with uncut hair. When a woman cuts her hair, she actually severs the glory of God from her life. The angels will lift and depart, for they are committed to the glory. Where there is no glory, the angels are absent, leaving only harsh judgment. Have you ever noticed that the armor of God does not make a provision for the back? Isaiah 58:8 says that the glory of the Lord shall be our rearguard! Titus 2:5 says that women are to be “keepers at home”. This phrase in the Greek language has a much deeper meaning than simply housekeeping, cooking, cleaning, etc. It also means “a guard, to beware”. Ladies, your job description involves more than housekeeping. You are to be a guard that will beware of any evil that would try to come into your homes.

We can actually open up our homes for evil spirits to come in if we are in rebellion. Your uncut hair brings protection to the entire family. The devil is the ultimate liar. So, before you cut your hair, ask yourself, “Why am I doing this?” and “How will this affect my family?” Do you dare forfeit divine protection for the sake of vanity? Sometimes in the darkest trials of your life, you will feel the urge to cut your hair. During the hardest trial that I have ever been through I was on my floor in the bathroom sobbing for hours. I felt the strongest urge to cut my hair, not to get it styled, but whacked off. There was a spirit fighting HARD for me to "just shock everyone, just cut it!" Thank God that I did not give in because if the devil can just get you to cut your hair, he has stripped away your army of angels that were protecting you.

What a comfort it is to know that the angels of the Lord are encamping around about our families, diligently on guard against any intrusion of the enemy forces. I cannot always be with my husband or my children 24 hours a day, but each day as I watch him leave for work and as I send them off to school, I can plead the blood of Jesus over them, pray the armor of God on them, and ask for the angels of the Lord to encamp around about them. We can ask this with confidence if we are in obedience to God’s Word and have not severed the glory in our lives. Only eternity will reveal how many times your family was protected because of this promise of power on your head.

Anje
May 18th 2009, 03:38 AM
You know, my best friend is part of a church called the Brethern. All women MUST have long hair; they are NOT allowed to talk during their meeting service...only the men can speak and pray out loud. She can't even pray at the dinner table and say grace. That's her husband's job. She must submit to him at all times as well. She doesn't believe in speaking in tongues. She doesn't believe in laying on of hands and people being healed in this manner. Along with a few other really strange "beliefs". But I will tell you, she is born again. She loves the Lord with everything she has. And I have learned so much from her in the short time I have known her. There are so many different takes on different parts of scripture, but as I have said to my friend...she's accepted Christ...I've accepted Christ...for me, that's the common denominator and that's all that matters.

As long as the differences aren't twisting scripture; adding to/taking away from scripture then they are of small importance.

Tomlane
May 18th 2009, 04:15 AM
thewizster, this email your friend send to you as an email has truth and lies in it. That is how Satan operates by mixing truth with lies.

This person stated:

The woman, as God created her, is a picture of the Church – the Law on the inside; the covering of her submission to that law on the outside; the mercy and the angels covering her; and the glory and the presence of God dwelling over, around, and in the midst of her! The woman’s uncut hair is a part of what makes her visible and recognizable as the covered bride of Jesus Christ.

The protection is not only for the woman but also for her family! Ezekiel 10 indicates that wherever the glory was the cherubim was as well. In verses 18 and 19, when the glory of the Lord departed from the house or the temple, the cherubim lifted up their wings and departed also. They were committed to the glory! We are the temple of the Holy Ghost and we have the glory as long as we are in submission through obedience with uncut hair. When a woman cuts her hair, she actually severs the glory of God from her life.

Part of the falsehood in this email states: The woman, as God created her, is a picture of the Church – the Law on the inside; the covering of her submission to that law on the outside.

Christ never made that comparison between a woman and the Church. What a lie that is. This is what Paul wrote, that there are different types of glory. Making a relationship between the glory of the ark where God dwelt and the glory of a woman is not the same kind of Glory as the author of this article states, thus making it a lie.

1 Corinthians 15:40 *There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
41 *There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
42 *So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 *It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 *It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Another reason this association is not according to God's word is that a woman and and a man that the author left out, is that both are neither male or female in Christ, so why make an issue of it. Also the man is to have short hair if he is in submission to the Lord's word. A man's short hair is just as much a glory and it is for a woman to have long hair. That glory they both give off is just another small part of God's workmanship that shows his glory when we are submissive. Its the heart the Lord looks at and the hair is just a reflection of heart attitude. When we are in God's oder in regards to hair more often than, God's proper order will attract the opposite sex to the other.

Here is another lie, We are the temple of the Holy Ghost and we have the glory as long as we are in submission through obedience with uncut hair.

its says we have the glory as long as we are in submission through obedience with uncut hair.

Again God looks upon our heart and not upon a woman's hair, utterly ridicules.

Romans 10:10 *For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

1 Peter 3:4 *But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

We cannot compare and make a direct connection of covered glory with what was put on paper to Israel other then for our learning not practice. For we who are saved are circumcision made without hands and what is written upon or heart is what God looks at.

1 Peter 3:4 *But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

No where does it say in God's word a woman is in obedience as long as she has long hair. Again obedience comes only from the heart and what about the woman who can't grow long hair.?

Christ never made a comparison with woman and the church but I remember someplace it makes a comparison between marriage and the church. I'm just too tired to find it.

I hope that helps someone a little, Tomlane

thewizster
May 18th 2009, 12:11 PM
You know, my best friend is part of a church called the Brethern. All women MUST have long hair; they are NOT allowed to talk during their meeting service...only the men can speak and pray out loud. She can't even pray at the dinner table and say grace. That's her husband's job. She must submit to him at all times as well. She doesn't believe in speaking in tongues. She doesn't believe in laying on of hands and people being healed in this manner. Along with a few other really strange "beliefs".

As long as the differences aren't twisting scripture; adding to/taking away from scripture then they are of small importance.

Anje,

I understand where you are coming from. But in this case there are several things being added and twisted. The thing being added is that a women is not saved unless she has uncut hair. There are no scriptures in the bible that say it is a sin for a women to cut her hair. They are adding this.

This is also teaching that an entire family's divine protection rests upon a women not cutting her hair. This is not biblical and is twisting the scriptures.


But I will tell you, she is born again. She loves the Lord with everything she has. And I have learned so much from her in the short time I have known her. There are so many different takes on different parts of scripture, but as I have said to my friend...she's accepted Christ...I've accepted Christ...for me, that's the common denominator and that's all that matters.

I agree. God looks upon the heart and accepts you and her by each ones faith and by faith alone. I too have friends in other churches and I consider then family. Where we have to be careful is when we start doing something, or living a certain way, in order to obtain approval from God. We cannot gain Gods approval on our life by any other means than faith in Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

With as many different beliefs going around these days be careful and do not believe everything you hear. Read your bible and study all things for yourself. Pray and ask for God's help. That is the best way for us all to walk.

Butch5
May 18th 2009, 11:23 PM
If the culture of the time doesn't play a role in things, then what do we do with this verse?

I Corinthians 15
29 - Otherwise, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why then are they baptized for them?

Last time I checked only LDS baptize for the dead - so if women shouldn't cut their hair due to what God says being true for all time - we should maybe outta think about baptizing for the dead. No? Hmmmmmm - somehow I thought not.

Actually Vhayes, there is another interpretation to consider. To baptize simply means to immerse. Paul may not be speaking of Christian baptism but of the practice of washing the dead in preparation for burial. Paul's arguing against those who said there is no resurrection. His point may be, if there is no resurrection why do people prepare the dead (bodies by washing) for the afterlife?

BroRog
May 19th 2009, 02:58 AM
The issue of a head covering, during Paul's time, centered around holiness and respect for God. And the issue arose in the Christian church due to a clash of two opposing cultural practices.

First cultural practice: married woman cover the hair.

During Paul's time, wearing a head covering was a cultural practice in which the wife was giving respect to her husband. Out of respect for the husband, the wife covered her hair in public. Keeping the hat on was a sign of respect for the husband.

Second cultural practice: men uncovered the head while praying in public.

During that same time another cultural practice involved the uncovering of the head. A man normally covered his head in public except to pray, at which time he uncovered his head. When a man prayed in public, he would take his hat off during the prayer, and put his hat back on after the prayer. Taking the hat off was a sign of respect for God.

Christian practice: cover or uncover?

When Christians began to meet for public prayer and the sharing of the scriptures, Paul taught that women were allowed to pray right along with the men. But this presented the church with a dilemma. Now that women were praying in public they had a choice to make. Should a woman remove her hat and thus honor God, while causing dishonor to her husband? Or should the woman keep her hat on and thus honor her husband while bringing dishonor to God?

Paul, we need a ruling.

Paul ruled that a wife (not all women, because the issue was only viable for married women) was to keep her hat on when she prayed rather than removing it.

His reasoning went something like this. Everyone has a head. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the man is the head of his family. Now, if a wife were to remove her hat in order to honor God, but doing so dishonored her husband, she would be dishonoring her head, i.e. her husband. And since bringing dishonor on a husband is tantamount to dishonoring God who gave the man the responsibility to run the family, she dishonors both her husband AND God by removing her hat.

But then, if she keeps her hat on, she brings honor to her husband, which also brings honor to God, and becomes a public display of her commitment to holiness and goodness. If she keeps her hat on, she will be respected by her community and thus bring glory to herself, her husband and her God.

So he ruled that a wife should keep her hat on while praying in church.

Now, today we do not have these same cultural practices and we do not associate the removal of hats as a form of respect for God. For us, the issues are not the same and our attire says more about our sense of style than our relationship with our husbands or with God.

So Paul's ruling about a woman wearing a hat is not at all relevant to our time. Wearing a hat, or not wearing a hat in church means nothing at all. It's all the same today. Fundamentalists who insist that women wear hats in church have misunderstood the scriptures and the situation behind them. First, Paul wasn't talking about all women, just married women. And secondly, Paul was making a ruling between two cultural practices, both of which are not practiced today anymore.

Vhayes
May 19th 2009, 04:18 AM
Actually Vhayes, there is another interpretation to consider. To baptize simply means to immerse. Paul may not be speaking of Christian baptism but of the practice of washing the dead in preparation for burial. Paul's arguing against those who said there is no resurrection. His point may be, if there is no resurrection why do people prepare the dead (bodies by washing) for the afterlife?
Hey Butch - thanks for this. That particular verse has troubled me for years and all the explanations I have heard for it don't make as much sense as the one you just gave. I'll do a word study of sorts for washing and baptism and see what I come up with but I truly appreciate this interpretation.

Be blessed!
V

Tonton
May 19th 2009, 12:27 PM
The first part of 1 Cor 11 talks about submitting to authority and gets into men and womens hair as a covering. Does this mean that men cannot have long hair and women cannot cut their hair?

Some people have told me that is what it means I would like some feedback from some of you...

The Corinthian females cut their hair as an act of non-submission - a type of protest or resistance to submitting to their husbands.

If you cut your hair to look good, and it is not non-submissive or with an ungodly alterior motive, it is not wrong.

Remember - the Law is now written on our hearts - therefore, if your concience is clear, it is OK to cut your hair.

Regards,
Anton

Veretax
May 19th 2009, 12:44 PM
The Corinthian females cut their hair as an act of non-submission - a type of protest or resistance to submitting to their husbands.

If you cut your hair to look good, and it is not non-submissive or with an ungodly alterior motive, it is not wrong.

Remember - the Law is now written on our hearts - therefore, if your concience is clear, it is OK to cut your hair.

Regards,
Anton


Exactly. Many of the things Paul was preaching against were so that the Church would be seen as separate from the mystery religions at Corinth. Cutting hair was just one thing their priestesses (who btw were also part time prostitutes would due)

ZAB
May 19th 2009, 01:34 PM
The issue of a head covering, during Paul's time, centered around holiness and respect for God. And the issue arose in the Christian church due to a clash of two opposing cultural practices.

First cultural practice: married woman cover the hair.

During Paul's time, wearing a head covering was a cultural practice in which the wife was giving respect to her husband. Out of respect for the husband, the wife covered her hair in public. Keeping the hat on was a sign of respect for the husband.

Second cultural practice: men uncovered the head while praying in public.

During that same time another cultural practice involved the uncovering of the head. A man normally covered his head in public except to pray, at which time he uncovered his head. When a man prayed in public, he would take his hat off during the prayer, and put his hat back on after the prayer. Taking the hat off was a sign of respect for God.

Christian practice: cover or uncover?

When Christians began to meet for public prayer and the sharing of the scriptures, Paul taught that women were allowed to pray right along with the men. But this presented the church with a dilemma. Now that women were praying in public they had a choice to make. Should a woman remove her hat and thus honor God, while causing dishonor to her husband? Or should the woman keep her hat on and thus honor her husband while bringing dishonor to God?

Paul, we need a ruling.

Paul ruled that a wife (not all women, because the issue was only viable for married women) was to keep her hat on when she prayed rather than removing it.

His reasoning went something like this. Everyone has a head. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of the church, and the man is the head of his family. Now, if a wife were to remove her hat in order to honor God, but doing so dishonored her husband, she would be dishonoring her head, i.e. her husband. And since bringing dishonor on a husband is tantamount to dishonoring God who gave the man the responsibility to run the family, she dishonors both her husband AND God by removing her hat.

But then, if she keeps her hat on, she brings honor to her husband, which also brings honor to God, and becomes a public display of her commitment to holiness and goodness. If she keeps her hat on, she will be respected by her community and thus bring glory to herself, her husband and her God.

So he ruled that a wife should keep her hat on while praying in church.

Now, today we do not have these same cultural practices and we do not associate the removal of hats as a form of respect for God. For us, the issues are not the same and our attire says more about our sense of style than our relationship with our husbands or with God.

So Paul's ruling about a woman wearing a hat is not at all relevant to our time. Wearing a hat, or not wearing a hat in church means nothing at all. It's all the same today. Fundamentalists who insist that women wear hats in church have misunderstood the scriptures and the situation behind them. First, Paul wasn't talking about all women, just married women. And secondly, Paul was making a ruling between two cultural practices, both of which are not practiced today anymore.

Can I get an Amen!?! :D

Tonton
May 19th 2009, 03:33 PM
Can I get an Amen!?! :D

AAAAMEN!

Anton

thewizster
May 21st 2009, 03:18 PM
Thanks everyone for your comments. They have been very informing!!!

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77