PDA

View Full Version : Discussion The Shame and Glory of Hair



Rufus_1611
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:15 AM
"3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 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. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." - 1 Corinthians 11:3-15 In light of this scripture, why have so many Christian women cut off their glory and why do so many Christian men have hair that nature itself teaches to be shameful?

crush
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:34 AM
I can't tell if God is telling women here to keep their hair long or shave their heads ? #6 seems to throw me LOL

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

And what does this mean....

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

zombieCat
Sep 22nd 2008, 03:58 AM
How does nature itself teach that it is shameful? Merely pointing to the fact that Paul states such gives no insight into this assertion.

Leviticus has a different perspective: Lev 19:27 - Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard.

In the Roman culture, from which Paul came, men had short hair. It seems this passage has its roots in a cultural perspective rather than a spiritual one.

Equipped_4_Love
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:18 AM
1415 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."

Obviously, the apostle Paul never saw me in the morning after rolling out of bed.

scourge39
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:59 AM
You conveniently excluded verse 16, which ends that discourse: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul is discussing common Corinthian customs. From what can be known of Corinth, which is a great deal, a woman with an uncovered head meant that she was single and available. If she covered her head, she was married. It was a display of marital fidelity for women to cover their heads in public. Paul didn't want single men chasing after married Christian women in Church or in public. It would have been a sin and a stumbling block to the unsaved if they were desiring people who were in fact married, which would dishonor the 'head' of both husbands and wives, who is Christ. Paul stresses the reciprocity between men and women in Christ. Verses 13 through 15 calls for the Corinthians to decide for themselves how much of the local social customs to employ. The Greek word translated 'nature' DOES NOT refer to God's created order, but rather to the currently accepted social norms of Corinth that existed outside the Church. That's why verse 16 doesn't demand that the Corinthian Church adopt any of the local customs. Other Churches evidently didn't allow local customs to infiltrate them.

9Marksfan
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:21 PM
You conveniently excluded verse 16, which ends that discourse: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul is discussing common Corinthian customs. From what can be known of Corinth, which is a great deal, a woman with an uncovered head meant that she was single and available. If she covered her head, she was married. It was a display of marital fidelity for women to cover their heads in public. Paul didn't want single men chasing after married Christian women in Church or in public. It would have been a sin and a stumbling block to the unsaved if they were desiring people who were in fact married, which would dishonor the 'head' of both husbands and wives, who is Christ. Paul stresses the reciprocity between men and women in Christ. Verses 13 through 15 calls for the Corinthians to decide for themselves how much of the local social customs to employ. The Greek word translated 'nature' DOES NOT refer to God's created order, but rather to the currently accepted social norms of Corinth that existed outside the Church. That's why verse 16 doesn't demand that the Corinthian Church adopt any of the local customs. Other Churches evidently didn't allow local customs to infiltrate them.

Excellent post, scourge39 - some fresh insights for me!

9Marksfan
Sep 22nd 2008, 12:34 PM
I can't tell if God is telling women here to keep their hair long or shave their heads ? #6 seems to throw me LOL

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Paul is talking about the blurring of distinctions between the sexes - if a woman did not have long hair (ie she had short hair), it was basically as bad as being a prostitute (who had their hair shorn - haven't you always felt that Sinead O'Connor's look was just - well - wrong?) - that's how serious Paul viewed the fact that men and women should LOOK different - because they ARE different!


And what does this mean....

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

Dunno what translation you're using, but it's misleading - "power" here is better translated "authority" here - the word is exousia and means "lawful authority" - also. most translations have "a symbol of authority", which heps the meaning. As for the angels, there are two main schools of thought - (a) the angels are watching and need either to be revered (??) or shown that we are following God's order in worship (neithr seems particularly convincing to me); or (b) because a third of the angels REJECTED God's order of authority and we ned to remember what happened to them - God will not tolerate a reversal of His order of authority.

On a personal note, I had an experience of this just yesterday when I was back in my home town for the first time in a very long time. I took our two kids (10 and 7) to the church that was my first spiritual "home" - it has grown in many ways in recent years but I have been unhappy with the "emerging" direction it has been taking - when I saw on the notice board that there were now two new pastors who were both female, my heart sank. I turned my kids to 1 Tim 2:12 and explained to them why we wouldn't be going to that church that morning. They completely accepted it. I ended up going with my Dad to the church I'd grown up in (not evangelical at all) to see if it was any better - sadly, it wasn't. Sigh - there are now NO Bible believing churches in my home town, one of the most prominent in Scotland....... :cry:

valleybldr
Sep 22nd 2008, 01:31 PM
In light of this scripture, why have so many Christian women cut off their glory and why do so many Christian men have hair that nature itself teaches to be shameful? Thanks for this thread!

My chavurah (small group) is going through from Yancey's "Does Prayer Make a Difference?" and we will be doing a sidebar on this passage. It also has a bearing on the issue of believing Jewish men wearing yamikas and woman who wear headcoverings. When I brought the hair length/yamika/headcovering piece up the group really went into gear and I had to remind them it was for a latter date. :)

Should be interesting.

todd

drew
Sep 22nd 2008, 01:49 PM
"In light of this scripture, why have so many Christian women cut off their glory and why do so many Christian men have hair that nature itself teaches to be shameful?
I believe that this is an example of a teaching that was specifc to the culture and times. I think that there are other such teachings. I know that many people will not agree with me, but I will claim that we err if we think that all the teachings in the Scriptures are timeless and universal.

Its not that simple. The story of God's redemption of the cosmos is an unfolding one. I suspect that most will agree that many of the dictates of the Torah are no longer in force (now that's a contentious debate unto itself). We should not forget that both Paul and Jesus were primarily engaged with dialogue with their contemporaries. I think we often see Jesus and Paul as speaking past their immediate listeners to us, 2000 years in the future.

There are, of course, many "universal" and timeless truths in the Scriptures. But not all prescriptions for behaviour fall into this category.

superwoman8977
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:53 PM
Paul is talking about the blurring of distinctions between the sexes - if a woman did not have long hair (ie she had short hair), it was basically as bad as being a prostitute (who had their hair shorn - haven't you always felt that Sinead O'Connor's look was just - well - wrong?) - that's how serious Paul viewed the fact that men and women should LOOK different - because they ARE different!



Dunno what translation you're using, but it's misleading - "power" here is better translated "authority" here - the word is exousia and means "lawful authority" - also. most translations have "a symbol of authority", which heps the meaning. As for the angels, there are two main schools of thought - (a) the angels are watching and need either to be revered (??) or shown that we are following God's order in worship (neithr seems particularly convincing to me); or (b) because a third of the angels REJECTED God's order of authority and we ned to remember what happened to them - God will not tolerate a reversal of His order of authority.

On a personal note, I had an experience of this just yesterday when I was back in my home town for the first time in a very long time. I took our two kids (10 and 7) to the church that was my first spiritual "home" - it has grown in many ways in recent years but I have been unhappy with the "emerging" direction it has been taking - when I saw on the notice board that there were now two new pastors who were both female, my heart sank. I turned my kids to 1 Tim 2:12 and explained to them why we wouldn't be going to that church that morning. They completely accepted it. I ended up going with my Dad to the church I'd grown up in (not evangelical at all) to see if it was any better - sadly, it wasn't. Sigh - there are now NO Bible believing churches in my home town, one of the most prominent in Scotland....... :cry:

I have to say I would have gone to the church with the woman pastors. I dont see an issue with it. I used to attend a church where the woman was the senior pastor and it was the most compassionate and friendly church I could attend unfortuntely we moved from the area so we had to stop going and I havent found another church that I like as much as I liked that church. Dont call churches with female pastors etc, non bible-believing because the level of compassion and love and everything most of the time far outeweighs a staunchy church with a male pastor. I am teaching my boys just as I was taught anything a man can do, a woman can do also.

divaD
Sep 22nd 2008, 02:57 PM
You conveniently excluded verse 16, which ends that discourse: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul is discussing common Corinthian customs. From what can be known of Corinth, which is a great deal, a woman with an uncovered head meant that she was single and available. If she covered her head, she was married. It was a display of marital fidelity for women to cover their heads in public. Paul didn't want single men chasing after married Christian women in Church or in public. It would have been a sin and a stumbling block to the unsaved if they were desiring people who were in fact married, which would dishonor the 'head' of both husbands and wives, who is Christ. Paul stresses the reciprocity between men and women in Christ. Verses 13 through 15 calls for the Corinthians to decide for themselves how much of the local social customs to employ. The Greek word translated 'nature' DOES NOT refer to God's created order, but rather to the currently accepted social norms of Corinth that existed outside the Church. That's why verse 16 doesn't demand that the Corinthian Church adopt any of the local customs. Other Churches evidently didn't allow local customs to infiltrate them.



I'll be the first to admit, I don't fully understand this passage, but I fail to see what you see. These customs that you're referring to, I have no doubt that these are likely to be factual, but is this what Paul's addressing? It's easy to give an overall summary of a passage, but can that overall summary actually be reconciled to the passage itself?

For example, and coming from the perspective Paul is addressing Corinth customs, how does it fit to this?

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God


Notice how 'head' is used in this verse 3 different times. Could this perhaps be a clue to what Paul will be getting at in this passage?



1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.


What would this have to do with Paul addressing the Corinthian customs, since it's speaking about the male and female in relation to praying or prophesying?


1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.


Who is the head of every man? Didn't we learn in verse 3 that it was Christ? Wouldn't this then mean that when a man prays or prophesies, having his head covered, that he dishonoureth Christ?


1 Corinthians 11:5 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.


Who is the head of every woman? Didn't we learn in verse 3 that it's the man? Wouldn't this then mean that when a woman prays or prophesies, having her head uncovered, that she dishonoureth the man?


1 Corinthians 11:7 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.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

We can know what verse 8 and 9 means, by going back to Genesis ch 2.

1 Corinthians 11:12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.


We can also understand what this means by once again going back to Genesis 2. We know the woman was created from the man, and we also know that man comes thru the woman, IOW thru childbirth.

Now with all of this in mind, could you perhaps show how and why Paul was specifically addressing the customs of the Corinthians, in regards to women being single or married, by applying that perspective to the verses in this passage? IOW, instead of an overall summary, show how this applies to what is written in the text. I'm not even claiming you are wrong, I just fail to see how you come to that conclusion according to what is written in the text.

9Marksfan
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:13 PM
I have to say I would have gone to the church with the woman pastors. I dont see an issue with it.

How do you explain 1 Tim 2:12 then?


I used to attend a church where the woman was the senior pastor and it was the most compassionate and friendly church I could attend unfortuntely we moved from the area so we had to stop going and I havent found another church that I like as much as I liked that church. Dont call churches with female pastors etc, non bible-believing because the level of compassion and love and everything most of the time far outeweighs a staunchy church with a male pastor.

But they invariably take a liberal approach to 1 Tim 2:12 (and several others). It's all about the authority of Scripture and accepting God's order, not the world's.


I am teaching my boys

That's fine, 'cos they're not men - Eunice and Lois did the same with Timothy.


just as I was taught anything a man can do, a woman can do also.

And where do you find that idea in the bible?

RabbiKnife
Sep 22nd 2008, 04:52 PM
The word translated "usurp authority over a man" or "exercise authority over a man" is found only in 1 Tim 2:12...nowhere else in the Word.

In non-Biblical Greek, it is found in reference to the Roman criminal code, in which case the issue was not gender but unilateralism....The word in the Roman criminal code is used to forbid a single magistrate from unilaterally condemning a person to death.

So the prohibition is not on having or exercising authority, but in the exercise to be done outside of the context of a plurality of leadership.

Ethnikos
Sep 22nd 2008, 05:23 PM
Paul also says that women should never pray without having their heads covered. No one in my church follows that. If the verse ever is brought up, people sit real still and let it pass.
It has to do with cultural traditions and was used (the long hair thing) as an example to a bigger argument and Paul did not make it an actual issue.
The Roman Senate would send home politicians if they showed up without a fresh shave. It may have been related to barbarians, with long hair who were considered uncouth.

9Marksfan
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:38 PM
I believe that this is an example of a teaching that was specifc to the culture and times. I think that there are other such teachings. I know that many people will not agree with me, but I will claim that we err if we think that all the teachings in the Scriptures are timeless and universal.

Its not that simple. The story of God's redemption of the cosmos is an unfolding one. I suspect that most will agree that many of the dictates of the Torah are no longer in force (now that's a contentious debate unto itself). We should not forget that both Paul and Jesus were primarily engaged with dialogue with their contemporaries. I think we often see Jesus and Paul as speaking past their immediate listeners to us, 2000 years in the future.

There are, of course, many "universal" and timeless truths in the Scriptures. But not all prescriptions for behaviour fall into this category.

The problem with THIS Scripture is that it goes back to first principles in creation, so must be universal in its application - but HOW......??

9Marksfan
Sep 22nd 2008, 10:47 PM
The word translated "usurp authority over a man" or "exercise authority over a man" is found only in 1 Tim 2:12...nowhere else in the Word.

Agreed. But the question of authority being male is all over the place - why do you think there weree no females among Christ's apostles? Do you think he was bound by cultural convention?!?


In non-Biblical Greek, it is found in reference to the Roman criminal code, in which case the issue was not gender but unilateralism....The word in the Roman criminal code is used to forbid a single magistrate from unilaterally condemning a person to death.

Agreed - but in context it is discouraging an independent spirit that is a "law unto itself" - which I've noticed many women from Eve onwards want to be.....


So the prohibition is not on having or exercising authority, but in the exercise to be done outside of the context of a plurality of leadership.

Disagree. It's failing to accept the established authority and being your own authority - a law unto yourself.

scourge39
Sep 22nd 2008, 11:18 PM
I'll be the first to admit, I don't fully understand this passage, but I fail to see what you see. These customs that you're referring to, I have no doubt that these are likely to be factual, but is this what Paul's addressing? It's easy to give an overall summary of a passage, but can that overall summary actually be reconciled to the passage itself?

Much study has been done on the city of Corinth. There are other Ancient Greek sources outside of Scripture written by contemporaries of Paul that describe the customs I speak of in my post. This is where consulting commentaries is helpful, they address details like the ones I mentioned and list the sources where the info can be found. They're not the be all end all, but they dispel the fallacious notions of some who think they can read the Bible with the same level of understanding as their local newspaper. We're over 2,000 years removed from the time when Scripture was written. We live in an entirely different culture and time period than that of both Paul and the other Biblical writers. In order to understand some of the things he was addressing, one must study what the Corinthian culture was like in his day. Doing so sheds light on the issues he was addressing and much of what he said in response to them. We can't adequately interpret much of Scripture without looking at the culture that shaped it any more than today's high school students can write an accurate history paper about the Kennedy assassination without consulting newspaper articles and historical accounts of those events written by those who lived through them in the 1960's. Yes, Scripture contains timeless elements that are applicable in any time period, but in order to be as faithful as possible in conveying the intended message of the original authors, we must understand the people and culture that individual books are addressing and in which they were written . If we don't do that, Scripture becomes merely a wax nose for preachers to twist any way they choose to suit their fanciful personal opinions and pet peeves. Understanding the historical context of a book or passage prevents people from letting their imaginations run wild about its meaning and application, as is frequently the case with pastors who supposedly just 'let the Spirit speak through the text.' This leads to legalism in many cases, trust me, I've been in several of those those 'all we need is our Bible and the Spirit' Churches. The pastors may sound very pious with their Pink Floyd mentality (i.e. 'We don't need no education...'), but most are twisting Scripture in ways that both its writers and the Holy Spirit who inspired them never intended, whether knowingly or unknowingly. These Churches usually degenerate into cults somewhere along the way, if they're not in that state already. Because of the over 2,000 year old divide separating us from the completion of our Christian Bible, many things in Scripture ARE NOT as clearly understood by us as they were to those for whom it was originally written. It's up to us to do some investigation and find answers that will help us be better custodians of God's Word.

divaD
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:19 AM
Much study has been done on the city of Corinth. There are other Ancient Greek sources outside of Scripture written by contemporaries of Paul that describe the customs I speak of in my post. This is where consulting commentaries is helpful, they address details like the ones I mentioned and list the sources where the info can be found. They're not the be all end all, but they dispel the fallacious notions of some who think they can read the Bible with the same level of understanding as their local newspaper. We're over 2,000 years removed from the time when Scripture was written. We live in an entirely different culture and time period than that of both Paul and the other Biblical writers. In order to understand some of the things he was addressing, one must study what the Corinthian culture was like in his day. Doing so sheds light on the issues he was addressing and much of what he said in response to them. We can't adequately interpret much of Scripture without looking at the culture that shaped it any more than today's high school students can write an accurate history paper about the Kennedy assassination without consulting newspaper articles and historical accounts of those events written by those who lived through them in the 1960's. Yes, Scripture contains timeless elements that are applicable in any time period, but in order to be as faithful as possible in conveying the intended message of the original authors, we must understand the people and culture that individual books are addressing and in which they were written . If we don't do that, Scripture becomes merely a wax nose for preachers to twist any way they choose to suit their fanciful personal opinions and pet peeves. Understanding the historical context of a book or passage prevents people from letting their imaginations run wild about its meaning and application, as is frequently the case with pastors who supposedly just 'let the Spirit speak through the text.' This leads to legalism in many cases, trust me, I've been in several of those those 'all we need is our Bible and the Spirit' Churches. The pastors may sound very pious with their Pink Floyd mentality (i.e. 'We don't need no education...'), but most are twisting Scripture in ways that both its writers and the Holy Spirit who inspired them never intended, whether knowingly or unknowingly. These Churches usually degenerate into cults somewhere along the way, if they're not in that state already. Because of the over 2,000 year old divide separating us from the completion of our Christian Bible, many things in Scripture ARE NOT as clearly understood by us as they were to those for whom it was originally written. It's up to us to do some investigation and find answers that will help us be better custodians of God's Word.




Hi scourge39. I understand where you're coming from, and I basically agree with your reasoning, but that still doesn't show how, by understanding the Corintian culture, specifically single and married women being defined by their covering/uncovering, and how this is applied to this passage. Personally, I can't see where Paul is trying to show any distinction between being married and single. The context in this passage seems to address praying or prophesying in the church, with uncovered being good for the man, but being bad for the woman, and not about whether the woman is single or married. I just don't see that. BTW, most people can't deal with me. I ask way too many questions. :)

scourge39
Sep 23rd 2008, 12:52 AM
Hi scourge39. I understand where you're coming from, and I basically agree with your reasoning, but that still doesn't show how, by understanding the Corintian culture, specifically single and married women being defined by their covering/uncovering, and how this is applied to this passage. Personally, I can't see where Paul is trying to show any distinction between being married and single. The context in this passage seems to address praying or prophesying in the church, with uncovered being good for the man, but being bad for the woman, and not about whether the woman is single or married. I just don't see that. BTW, most people can't deal with me. I ask way too many questions. :)

Several recent commentators point out that single women uncovered their heads while married ones covered them in public, a custom that evidently came up for discussion as it pertained to public worship. Married women covered their heads in public both as a sign of being both married and under their husband's authority. When it mentions men having long hair, that likely refers to hair that was unbound and allowed to hang loose and not necessarily 'long' in the sense of length that we use today. Since Paul stresses that men and women share an equal right to both pray and prophesy in public worship, he leaves it up to the Corinthians themselves to decide how much of the head covering/uncovering 'status indicator' to bring into the Church. That's why he reminds them in verse 16 that other Churches didn't allow cultural norms to affect public worship and that he didn't personally see any reason to force them to implement such customs either.

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:09 AM
Paul (as I've learned) was speaking about the order of authority.
One under authority should have a covered head – representing having someone over them.

Outside of church women were to be covered with their hair, but inside they were to wear a cloth and added symbol of being under the authority of Christ.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1Cor 11:15

Men of that day may have had longish hair, but not past the shoulders and not down toward the waist.
Men were to be the family authority and so had shorter hair and didn’t wear a cloth while praying.
However Christ is authority over men as well as women. And the authority over Christ is the Father.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:3

Of course, Levitical rules for hair don’t apply to the church.

I think his point was not about fashion, but I think Paul was establishing order in families.
Let's not forget that he also said there was no difference to Christ. We are all under Him.

Richard

scourge39
Sep 23rd 2008, 05:30 AM
The point is that we have no idea what was considered long hair in Paul's day. Even modern Christians make very arbitrary about what constitutes as hair that's too long on males. To some, it's any hair that grows below a shirt collar or touches one's shoulders. To others, it doesn't matter either way. Anybody who has attended and Bible college with a dress code knows this to be true. The Greek word that's translated 'long' in most English Bibles is apparently very confusing to fully understand and difficult to convey in English. 'Long' may not be a very accurate rendering of its meaning. Recent commentators are very careful to caution readers against reading too much into it, which is very wise. Restraint is something that is important in these matters. A balance must be struck between making the text say either too little or too much of what the author intended.

valleybldr
Sep 23rd 2008, 09:20 AM
Even modern Christians make very arbitrary about what constitutes as hair that's too long on males. "Long" must be measured within the context of a given culture. It's the principle we are seeking to understand and live by not the ruler. todd

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:02 PM
I can't tell if God is telling women here to keep their hair long or shave their heads ? #6 seems to throw me LOL

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

And what does this mean....

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

I believe that verse 6 is a reference to God's desire that His people be either hot or cold but not lukewarm. Thus, if a woman is not going to cover her head, she ought to shave it.

Verse 10 is quite perplexing to me.

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:06 PM
You conveniently excluded verse 16, which ends that discourse: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. I also "conveniently" left of verse 1&2 as well as the rest of 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, the Gospels, the Pentateuch, the major prophets, the minor prophets, Revelation, and more.


Paul is discussing common Corinthian customs. From what can be known of Corinth, which is a great deal, a woman with an uncovered head meant that she was single and available. If she covered her head, she was married. It was a display of marital fidelity for women to cover their heads in public. Paul didn't want single men chasing after married Christian women in Church or in public. It would have been a sin and a stumbling block to the unsaved if they were desiring people who were in fact married, which would dishonor the 'head' of both husbands and wives, who is Christ. Paul stresses the reciprocity between men and women in Christ. Verses 13 through 15 calls for the Corinthians to decide for themselves how much of the local social customs to employ. The Greek word translated 'nature' DOES NOT refer to God's created order, but rather to the currently accepted social norms of Corinth that existed outside the Church. That's why verse 16 doesn't demand that the Corinthian Church adopt any of the local customs. Other Churches evidently didn't allow local customs to infiltrate them. When you talk about things like "if she covered her head" or "for women to cover their heads" with what are you believing she ought to have her head covered by?

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:08 PM
Thanks for this thread!

My chavurah (small group) is going through from Yancey's "Does Prayer Make a Difference?" and we will be doing a sidebar on this passage. It also has a bearing on the issue of believing Jewish men wearing yamikas and woman who wear headcoverings. When I brought the hair length/yamika/headcovering piece up the group really went into gear and I had to remind them it was for a latter date. :)

Should be interesting.

todd I'd be delighted to hear how your study turns out.

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:10 PM
I believe that this is an example of a teaching that was specifc to the culture and times. I think that there are other such teachings. I know that many people will not agree with me, but I will claim that we err if we think that all the teachings in the Scriptures are timeless and universal. I don't think you'll find many that will not agree with you. The current spirit of the air seems to call for believing much of the Bible is cultural and does not pertain to today's Christians for all matters of faith and practice. The minority position is believing that the epistles written to churches, actually applies to today's churches.


Its not that simple. The story of God's redemption of the cosmos is an unfolding one. I suspect that most will agree that many of the dictates of the Torah are no longer in force (now that's a contentious debate unto itself). We should not forget that both Paul and Jesus were primarily engaged with dialogue with their contemporaries. I think we often see Jesus and Paul as speaking past their immediate listeners to us, 2000 years in the future.

There are, of course, many "universal" and timeless truths in the Scriptures. But not all prescriptions for behaviour fall into this category.

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:14 PM
Paul (as I've learned) was speaking about the order of authority.
One under authority should have a covered head – representing having someone over them.

Outside of church women were to be covered with their hair, but inside they were to wear a cloth and added symbol of being under the authority of Christ.
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 1Cor 11:15 If 1 Cor 11:15 says her hair is given to her for a covering, where is the passage that indicates that she is to wear a cloth inside?


Men of that day may have had longish hair, but not past the shoulders and not down toward the waist.
Men were to be the family authority and so had shorter hair and didn’t wear a cloth while praying.
However Christ is authority over men as well as women. And the authority over Christ is the Father.

But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Cor 11:3

Of course, Levitical rules for hair don’t apply to the church.

I think his point was not about fashion, but I think Paul was establishing order in families.
Let's not forget that he also said there was no difference to Christ. We are all under Him.

Richard

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:40 PM
I believe that verse 6 is a reference to God's desire that His people be either hot or cold but not lukewarm. Thus, if a woman is not going to cover her head, she ought to shave it.

Verse 10 is quite perplexing to me.
The coverig inside the church would be to symbolize that she is yet under the authority of Christ – having no natural covering.
Not to do so would have been a sign of rebellion in that day.

I don’t think Paul even thought of chemo-therapy. :rolleyes:

Richard

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:47 PM
I just fired up e-Sword…
I agree with the neither hot nor cold interpretation.

Verse 10 tells us that the angels watch how we behave. In a sense we are witnessing to the fallen and un-fallen – that we are not in rebellion as the fallen angels and will be they will also face judgment day.

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 02:52 PM
A woman’s covering inside church:

1Co 11:5 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.

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?


YHWH
___
:rolleyes:

Rufus_1611
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:01 PM
A woman’s covering inside church:

1Co 11:5 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.

1Co 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?


YHWH
___
:rolleyes: Good verses. Now, seeking the scriptures to determine what the Holy Bible defines what it means for a woman to be "covered", we must return to 1 Corinthians 11:15.


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

The Bible declares that a woman's hair is given her for a covering. So where in the Bible does it say she needs to put a covering over her covering?

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 03:24 PM
Good verses. Now, seeking the scriptures to determine what the Holy Bible defines what it means for a woman to be "covered", we must return to 1 Corinthians 11:15.

"But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." - 1 Corinthians 11:15
The Bible declares that a woman's hair is given her for a covering. So where in the Bible does it say she needs to put a covering over her covering?
Ah HA!

I think yer right. :)

- Only if she is clean shaven.

keck553
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:14 PM
I'm terribly sorry if this detracts from the OP's intent, but the title keeps reminding me of that Cowsills song.

Now I can't get it out of my head. :(

Richard H
Sep 23rd 2008, 04:30 PM
I'm terribly sorry if this detracts from the OP's intent, but the title keeps reminding me of that Cowsills song.

Now I can't get it out of my head. :(
LOL
Gleamin’, waxin’ Flaxen. |:rolleyes:|



‘cep the 60s were about rebellion - not submission to Christ. :)

scourge39
Sep 24th 2008, 05:56 AM
I don't think you'll find many that will not agree with you. The current spirit of the air seems to call for believing much of the Bible is cultural and does not pertain to today's Christians for all matters of faith and practice. The minority position is believing that the epistles written to churches, actually applies to today's churches.

No Evangelical I know of would affirm that. Some Liberals certainly would though. You're painting with some incredibly broad brushstrokes. This is rhetoric straight out of your KJV-only camp, and you know it. Those with whom you align yourself have no use for scholarship of any kind unless they're trying to defend the Bible version that they unwittingly worship even above Christ himself. (Gail Riplinger, who holds a degree in Interior Design from Kent State, not Biblical Studies, is a prime example. Yes, I suffered through her error-laden tripe when it first came out, so there's no reason to suggest that I read it again. I also am one of those who believes that she's not a true Christian at all, but instead, someone who wound up the KJV-only crowd against those who read modern translations for the sole purpose of getting Christians to fight amongst themselves). Christians in every era have recognized that some things written in Scripture are not perpetually applicable for all time. Sure, there's been disagreement over how to go about applying some passages, but no one completely throws them out.

1 Corinthians 11 does in fact apply in some way to today's Churches. Every commentator I looked at sees the passage as teaching that there should always be a clear distinction between males and females in terms of dress. This may vary depending on cultural norms and geographic location. It's not teaching that it's necessarily 'sinful' either for men to have long hair or women not to cover their heads. That's really reading things into the passage that can't be supported with either internal or external textual/linguistic evidence. Paul isn't trying to make it an issue of morality, as so many Christians do today. Do the women with whom you attend Church wear hats and other head coverings to services each week? It's fascinating that the same people who believe that the portion of the passage addressing female head coverings no longer applies today are the same people who jump on the bandwagon to enforce 'shameful long-haired male' part as quickly as possible. If that part applies today exactly as it did for Corinth, then tell your pastor to make sure that all the ladies start wearing veils and babushkas to Church too. Be consistent and apply it that way equally for both males and females. The passage also teaches submission and obedience to God and of wives to husbands, just as other passages do. Who says it doesn't apply at all to today? A handful of skeptics, that's about all. That is not the majority view, I assure you. Every true Christian affirms the truth of 2 Timothy 3:14-17. It sounds like you want to treat the (mis)use of this passage by some to endorse all manner of legalism as sacrosanct. You automatically reject any legitimate attempt to interpret the text that differs from the way you've always seen it applied by some pastors.

scourge39
Sep 24th 2008, 06:49 AM
So where in the Bible does it say she needs to put a covering over her covering?

Verse 6 says that women who don't cover their heads should shave off their hair. If hair is the only covering to which Paul refers and it's already covering a woman's head, then there's no reason for her to shave it off as Paul says should be done under those circumstances, is there? He's clearly referring to other head coverings besides hair in verses 4 through 7. He doesn't mention hair as a covering until verses 14 and 15.

Richard H
Sep 24th 2008, 10:14 AM
Verse 6 says that women who don't cover their heads should shave off their hair. If hair is the only covering to which Paul refers and it's already covering a woman's head, then there's no reason for her to shave it off as Paul says should be done under those circumstances, is there? He's clearly referring to other head coverings besides hair in verses 4 through 7. He doesn't mention hair as a covering until verses 14 and 15.
I see now, Scourge. :idea: Thanks.
Sometimes I need to do this (below) to follow the train of thought. It’s just the way I am. J

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.
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co 11:5,6

And every woman, who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head; for she is on a level with her whose head is shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her also be shorn; but if it be shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(Murdoc)

I carefully rearrange Murdoc (or another literal version), so I can follow the thought:
And every woman, who prayeth or prophesieth - let her be covered.
And every woman, who prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered - dishonoreth her head - , let her also be shorn. - it be shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaven.

Rufus_1611
Sep 24th 2008, 01:15 PM
No Evangelical I know of would affirm that. It's been affirmed time and time again on this very board.


Some Liberals certainly would though. You're painting with some incredibly broad brushstrokes. This is rhetoric straight out of your KJV-only camp, and you know it. How do you know what I know and how do I find out what you know?


Those with whom you align yourself have no use for scholarship of any kind unless they're trying to defend the Bible version that they unwittingly worship even above Christ himself. I don't know to whom you speak but I will affirm that, speaking for myself, I have no use for today's scholarolatry.


"Surely men of low degree are vanity, and men of high degree are a lie: to be laid in the balance, they are altogether lighter than vanity." - Psalm 62:9


(Gail Riplinger, who holds a degree in Interior Design from Kent State, not Biblical Studies, is a prime example. Yes, I suffered through her error-laden tripe when it first came out, so there's no reason to suggest that I read it again. I suggest you read it again. I really am not that much of an advocate of Ms. Riplinger's own words but what she did that was quite powerful, to me at least, in New Age Bible Versions was to simply lay out the scripture and compare them one to another. An honest observer can only conclude that not all of today's "bibles" are of God. If you take an NIV-only position or NASB-only position, I can disagree but respect that but not all of those "bibles" can be true. Either the new bibles (or one of the new bibles) are right or the AV is true, they can not all be the truth.


I also am one of those who believes that she's not a true Christian at all, but instead, someone who wound up the KJV-only crowd against those who read modern translations for the sole purpose of getting Christians to fight amongst themselves). The AV was here for 300 years before the modern version creators created the strife and division.


Christians in every era have recognized that some things written in Scripture are not perpetually applicable for all time. Sure, there's been disagreement over how to go about applying some passages, but no one completely throws them out. Many completely throw them out and pick and choose in this cafeteria Christianity age.


1 Corinthians 11 does in fact apply in some way to today's Churches. It fully applies completely to today's churches.


Every commentator I looked at sees the passage as teaching that there should always be a clear distinction between males and females in terms of dress. This may vary depending on cultural norms and geographic location. It's not teaching that it's necessarily 'sinful' either for men to have long hair or women not to cover their heads. It says it is a shame for a man to have long hair, I would deduce that something that is shameful is sinful. It says that long hair is a glory to the woman, I would think that woman ought to seek that which is glorious and choosing that which is not glorious would seem shameful/sinful.


That's really reading things into the passage that can't be supported with either internal or external textual/linguistic evidence. My foundation is not in "external textual/linguistic evidence.


"The B-I-B-L-E yes that's the book for me, I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E, BIBLE!"


Paul isn't trying to make it an issue of morality, as so many Christians do today. So many Christians? Where are these multitudes?


Do the women with whom you attend Church wear hats and other head coverings to services each week? No. If they did, they would be covering their covering and they would be concealing their glory.


It's fascinating that the same people who believe that the portion of the passage addressing female head coverings no longer applies today are the same people who jump on the bandwagon to enforce 'shameful long-haired male' part as quickly as possible. If that part applies today exactly as it did for Corinth, then tell your pastor to make sure that all the ladies start wearing veils and babushkas to Church too. I will not, I don't think you are understanding my position on this matter.


Be consistent and apply it that way equally for both males and females. I am. Men should have short hair and women should have long hair.


The passage also teaches submission and obedience to God and of wives to husbands, just as other passages do. Who says it doesn't apply at all to today? A handful of skeptics, that's about all. That is not the majority view, I assure you. Every true Christian affirms the truth of 2 Timothy 3:14-17. It sounds like you want to treat the (mis)use of this passage by some to endorse all manner of legalism as sacrosanct. This is not a salvation matter this is an obedience matter and it is not legalism to preach obedience for Christian brethren.


You automatically reject any legitimate attempt to interpret the text that differs from the way you've always seen it applied by some pastors. You are quite presumptuous. If I went with what pastors taught me, I would be on your side of the argument.

scourge39
Sep 24th 2008, 02:31 PM
My foundation is not in "external textual/linguistic evidence.


"The B-I-B-L-E yes that's the book for me, I stand alone on the word of God, the B-I-B-L-E, BIBLE!"

Correction, you stand alone on a particular translation of the Bible, the KJV 1611, whose translators used various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek Septuagint OT, and Jerome's (Roman Catholic) Latin Vulgate to create it. Human beings translated the KJV 1611 and made the same kinds of choices between one translation or manuscript versus another as any modern translator would. What about the Douay-Rheims or John Calvin's Geneva Bible that preceded the KJV 1611, were they crap too? How exactly did the Church function in terms of its translational understanding of Scripture before 1611? What about NON-English speaking Christians, since the KJV 1611 is an English translation? Do Hispanic, French, or Asian Christians not understand Scripture because they use Bibles translated in their respective native languages? You KJV- Only folk mean well in what you say, but fail to realize that both racism and ethnocentrism lie at the heart of your whole argument, whether you realize or admit to it or not.




This is not a salvation matter this is an obedience matter and it is not legalism to preach obedience for Christian brethren.
Then what exactly is Paul saying in verse 16, which concludes that part of his discussion about coverings and public worship? What 'custom' don't Paul, the apostles, and other Churches of God not observe? It has to refer to the head covering (female) / long hair (male) issue previously discussed.


You are quite presumptuous. If I went with what pastors taught me, I would be on your side of the argument.

So I take it you don't go to Church? If all pastors are suspect and deliberately deceiving people, then why bother?


I am. Men should have short hair and women should have long hair.

Hair is not the only covering referred to in the whole passage. Verse 6 says that women who don't cover their heads should shave off their hair. If hair is the only covering to which Paul refers in this entire section, and it's already naturally covering a woman's head, then there's no reason for her to shave it off as Paul says should be done if she refuse to cover her head, is there? (Read verse 6 in your KJV 1611 very carefully, even its older English usage agrees with what I'm saying) Paul clearly referring to other head coverings besides hair in verses 4 through 7. He doesn't mention hair itself as being a covering until verses 14 and 15.

Rufus_1611
Sep 24th 2008, 03:46 PM
Correction, you stand alone on a particular translation of the Bible, the KJV 1611, whose translators used various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, the Greek Septuagint OT, and Jerome's (Roman Catholic) Latin Vulgate to create it. Human beings translated the KJV 1611 and made the same kinds of choices between one translation or manuscript versus another as any modern translator would. Moses, and Paul were likewise humans. God can inspire men to pen the original words and God can inspire men to preserve those words.


What about the Douay-Rheims or John Calvin's Geneva Bible that preceded the KJV 1611, were they crap too? I wouldn't necessarily use such vulgarity to describe such things. The Douay-Rheims is a Roman Catholic perversion. The Geneva was in the right line of text and some of its language made it into the AV and it was part of the six which were purified.


How exactly did the Church function in terms of its translational understanding of Scripture before 1611? There was contention because of the divers translations so they felt compelled to take many and turn them into one. Now, the church apparently feels compelled to take one and turn them into many.


What about NON-English speaking Christians, since the KJV 1611 is an English translation? Do Hispanic, French, or Asian Christians not understand Scripture because they use Bibles translated in their respective native languages? No.


You KJV- Only folk mean well in what you say, but fail to realize that both racism and ethnocentrism lie at the heart of your whole argument, whether you realize or admit to it or not. You've got to be kidding me. I had no idea, I was discussing this matter with the Reverend Al Sharpton.


Then what exactly is Paul saying in verse 16, which concludes that part of his discussion about coverings and public worship? What 'custom' don't Paul, the apostles, and other Churches of God not observe? It has to refer to the head covering (female) / long hair (male) issue previously discussed.

So I take it you don't go to Church? You would be in error to take it that way.


If all pastors are suspect and deliberately deceiving people, then why bother? ...because not all pastors are and is not a contention I made.


Hair is not the only covering referred to in the whole passage. Verse 6 says that women who don't cover their heads should shave off their hair. If hair is the only covering to which Paul refers in this entire section, and it's already naturally covering a woman's head, then there's no reason for her to shave it off as Paul says should be done if she refuse to cover her head, is there? This is a reference to God's desire that His people be either on fire for Him or cold but not lukewarm. If a woman isn't going to have long hair (hot), she ought to be shorn (cold) but not that middle of the road thing where it's hard to tell for some if it is long (hot) or short (cold) but rather middle of the road (lukewarm).




(Read verse 6 in your KJV 1611 very carefully, even its older English usage agrees with what I'm saying) Paul clearly referring to other head coverings besides hair in verses 4 through 7. He doesn't mention hair itself as being a covering until verses 14 and 15. He never defines a covering as being cloth, it is something you are assuming and reading into the text. He does define a covering on a woman as being her long hair and it is irrelevant that it comes later in the chapter.

Richard H
Sep 24th 2008, 04:06 PM
<snip>
I suggest you read it again. I really am not that much of an advocate of Ms. Riplinger's own words but what she did that was quite powerful, to me at least, in New Age Bible Versions was to simply lay out the scripture and compare them one to another. An honest observer can only conclude that not all of today's "bibles" are of God. If you take an NIV-only position or NASB-only position, I can disagree but respect that but not all of those "bibles" can be true. Either the new bibles (or one of the new bibles) are right or the AV is true, they can not all be the truth.

<snip>
New Age Bible? New Age Bible?!!!

What's next? The gospel according to L. Ron Hubbard?

scourge39
Sep 24th 2008, 04:10 PM
New Age Bible? New Age Bible?!!!

What's next? The gospel according to L. Ron Hubbard?

Here's some good, balanced info on what Rufuss1611 is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Riplinger

Richard H
Sep 24th 2008, 04:20 PM
here's some good, balanced info on what rufuss1611 is referring to:<snip>

oic ty :)
____________________

Rufus_1611
Sep 24th 2008, 04:33 PM
Here's some good, balanced info on what Rufuss1611 is referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Riplinger

"Balanced"?!


.................

RabbiKnife
Sep 24th 2008, 05:21 PM
If you dig to the end of what Paul was saying in I Cor 11, his finally ruling is this:

v 16..."But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."

Said another way "I, Paul don't require any such customs, and neither do the churches of God."

RickH
Sep 24th 2008, 05:58 PM
v 16..."But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."

Said another way "I, Paul don't require any such customs, and neither do the churches of God."
That is easily debatable. First, why would he spend so much time and effort explaining this in a letter of correction that he sent to the church if at the end he was just going to say "but do what you want to". The book of 1 Corinthians is largely a letter addressing things that the church had either misunderstood or strayed from. He clearly said things as if they were commandments.
Secondly, if you are not of the KJV only camp, you can read translations that are based on updated knowledge of the ancient Greek language and other findings to find that it is now commonly interpreted as:

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NET1)
16 If anyone intends to quarrel about this, we have no other practice, nor do the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:16 (NASB)
16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.
1 Corinthians 11:16 (NIV)
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice--nor do the churches of God.

Blessings,
Rick

Richard H
Sep 24th 2008, 07:48 PM
My douplenomen!!! :D

(OK. I made it up) LOL

Welcome!
Richard

RickH
Sep 24th 2008, 07:54 PM
My douplenomen!!! :D

(OK. I made it up) LOL

Welcome!
Richard
Thanks, in my post under the "Introductions" category I apologized for taking a screen name as close to yours. I honestly had no idea. Hopefully people won't get us confused! :D

Richard H
Sep 24th 2008, 08:04 PM
Thanks, in my post under the "Introductions" category I apologized for taking a screen name as close to yours. I honestly had no idea. Hopefully people won't get us confused! :D

No Prob. :)

wait... Round two is about to begin..... :D

[CLANG]

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 01:29 AM
If you dig to the end of what Paul was saying in I Cor 11, his finally ruling is this:

v 16..."But if anyone is inclined to be argumentative, we do not have such a custom, nor do the churches of God."

Said another way "I, Paul don't require any such customs, and neither do the churches of God."

This is the point I've tried to emphasize a couple of times already in this thread. Evidently, it's fallen on deaf ears. Verse 16 is proof that Paul is addressing a cultural issue (possibly unique to Corinthian culture alone), not an ongoing moral or ethical one. People wanting to make the whole passage out to be an ethical/obedience/moral issue for every era love to sidestep verse 16, which is the last verse in that portion of Paul's discourse. (Notice how Rufus 1611 didn't even bother to include verse 16 when he cites the passage in the first post of this thread.). Verse 16 clearly shows that Paul was not mentioning a once-for-all mandate regarding long versus short hair or head coverings versus no head coverings in the previous verses. I've been a Christian since 1985, and can honestly say that every sermon I've ever heard preached on the passage under discussion, which have been more than I'd care to remember, invariably failed to include verse 16, which freed preachers up to place a yoke of legalism on their hearers.

RickH
Sep 25th 2008, 02:36 AM
Hi Scourge39, I understand that we will probably not change each others minds here but have you considered my post that demonstrates a large group of translations (I only listed three) that basically rephrase verse 16 as to saying "...we have no other practice"? The reason I ask is because in a previous post within this thread you seem to be open to using versions other than the KJV and to scholarly examination.
I am in no way a scholar, but as I read about this subject, it appears that a large number of modern interpreters and scholars agree that verse 16 best reads as "...no other practice".
Can you please help me understand your reasoning to reject the more recent scholarly thoughts and interpretations? In addition to the various versions I have available (I can post more if you wish, but at this point I think adding more would be overkill), a large number of commentaries agree as well. Most believe that it was a local practice though.
Just curious on your thoughts here, not meant to attack in any way.
Thank you,
Rick

ynnedenny
Sep 25th 2008, 03:20 AM
Well, since we're on the subject of hair, something I have an obvious interest in, what is the general consensus about men with long hair? Am I living in sin because of my tresses? Does God actually care what hairdo we're sportin'? I mean, whether my hair is long or short, my soul is the same, my heart is true, my faith is strong. If I missed something in an earlier post that answers this, I apologize... I'm still new to all this.

threebigrocks
Sep 25th 2008, 03:25 AM
"3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 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. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." - 1 Corinthians 11:3-15In light of this scripture, why have so many Christian women cut off their glory and why do so many Christian men have hair that nature itself teaches to be shameful?

Well, let's look at it like this.

The propriety of God is the Father over Christ, Christ over man, and man over woman. They are the order of things.

It is using the custom and social norm of the time to show that propriety in the Spirit. To count on ones hair is to be legalistic about things, but it shows how we no longer are under the law but under grace in that we have man who is a covering for woman and Christ a covering for man and the Father over Christ. If a man has long hair, he is covered by his own self or self righteous. If he has short hair it's saying that he doesn't rely on self but on the righteousness of Christ. Woman does not have Christ but man over her, so her covering is symbolic of that.

The long hair was symbolic. Before anyone rakes me over the coals, no I'm not saying that anyone who keep long hair because of this verse is being legalistic. I'm not saying that a woman with short hair is being self righteous. It's showing a spiritual meaning behind what is obvious. Also be kind in that women are not under some weird sort of submissive thumb of a man. Even was taken from Adam's side - they are equal yet have different roles. As it says in Ephesians - a husband is the only one commanded to love their spouse. Another example of the hair illustration and the order put forth by God from the beginning.

zombieCat
Sep 25th 2008, 05:22 AM
Well, since we're on the subject of hair, something I have an obvious interest in, what is the general consensus about men with long hair? Am I living in sin because of my tresses? Does God actually care what hairdo we're sportin'? I mean, whether my hair is long or short, my soul is the same, my heart is true, my faith is strong. If I missed something in an earlier post that answers this, I apologize... I'm still new to all this.Rock on ynnedenny! :pp Honestly, this is the type of thing I picture Pharisees discussing ad infinitum, faces grim and taught, as though the fate of the world hinged upon it.

Rufus_1611
Sep 25th 2008, 11:37 AM
This is the point I've tried to emphasize a couple of times already in this thread. Evidently, it's fallen on deaf ears. Verse 16 is proof that Paul is addressing a cultural issue (possibly unique to Corinthian culture alone), not an ongoing moral or ethical one. People wanting to make the whole passage out to be an ethical/obedience/moral issue for every era love to sidestep verse 16, which is the last verse in that portion of Paul's discourse. (Notice how Rufus 1611 didn't even bother to include verse 16 when he cites the passage in the first post of this thread.). Verse 16 clearly shows that Paul was not mentioning a once-for-all mandate regarding long versus short hair or head coverings versus no head coverings in the previous verses. I've been a Christian since 1985, and can honestly say that every sermon I've ever heard preached on the passage under discussion, which have been more than I'd care to remember, invariably failed to include verse 16, which freed preachers up to place a yoke of legalism on their hearers.

I am quoting the whole chapter below so as not to cause a seemingly contentious brother to stumble...



1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 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. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. 12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. 13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. 16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. 31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. 32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. 33 Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. 34 And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come." - 1 Corinthians 11

Rufus_1611
Sep 25th 2008, 11:41 AM
Well, since we're on the subject of hair, something I have an obvious interest in, what is the general consensus about men with long hair? I believe the general consensus would be that it is not a problem and you can have as long of hair as you desire. I believe I am in the minority that believes that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.


Am I living in sin because of my tresses? Brother, I believe you are. Long hair is the glory of a woman and is the shame of a man. I encourage you to wear your hair like a man.


Does God actually care what hairdo we're sportin'? I believe He does, for if He cared not He would not have inspired Paul to write about it in 1 Corinthians 11.



I mean, whether my hair is long or short, my soul is the same, my heart is true, my faith is strong. If I missed something in an earlier post that answers this, I apologize... I'm still new to all this.

Rufus_1611
Sep 25th 2008, 11:44 AM
Rock on ynnedenny! :pp Honestly, this is the type of thing I picture Pharisees discussing ad infinitum, faces grim and taught, as though the fate of the world hinged upon it. Well, I guess you are right in one sense...


"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." - Acts 23:6

Whispering Grace
Sep 25th 2008, 05:39 PM
I don't cut my hair, and right now it is about waist-length.

What I don't understand, however, is why God is allowing it to fall out. It seems like when I repented of cutting my hair, it started falling out (I used to have very thick hair, now it is very thin). I have prayed about it, but it doesn't seem to be letting up, and to be quite honest, it has caused me more stress and heartache than I care to admit.

I believe God's Word that says long hair is my glory. But if that's so....why is He letting it fall out?

threebigrocks
Sep 25th 2008, 05:44 PM
It is the spiritual aspect, dear sister, not the actual hair. I know you have Christ as your Lord, and He is the covering we need and what He desires. :)

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 06:01 PM
It is the spiritual aspect, dear sister, not the actual hair. I know you have Christ as your Lord, and He is the covering we need and what He desires. :) Amen! I heard a few preachers while attending Bible college in the mid 1990's who said that some men's hair was TOO SHORT and that they were trying to look like skinheads. The legalists need to make up their minds on the issue.

Emanate
Sep 25th 2008, 06:03 PM
Taking the entirey of the debate into account, did Jesus have long hair like the pictures and movies suggest?

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 06:05 PM
I don't cut my hair, and right now it is about waist-length.

What I don't understand, however, is why God is allowing it to fall out. It seems like when I repented of cutting my hair, it started falling out (I used to have very thick hair, now it is very thin). I have prayed about it, but it doesn't seem to be letting up, and to be quite honest, it has caused me more stress and heartache than I care to admit.

I believe God's Word that says long hair is my glory. But if that's so....why is He letting it fall out?

It just sounds like the effects of aging may be setting in. Don't go overboard in believing that your hair loss is some sort of Divine judgment. We live in fallen bodies that are in a continual state of decay.

zombieCat
Sep 25th 2008, 06:07 PM
Well, I guess you are right in one sense...

"But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question." - Acts 23:6Old habits die hard, apparently.

zombieCat
Sep 25th 2008, 06:11 PM
I believe the general consensus would be that it is not a problem and you can have as long of hair as you desire. I believe I am in the minority that believes that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.

Brother, I believe you are. Long hair is the glory of a woman and is the shame of a man. I encourage you to wear your hair like a man.

I believe He does, for if He cared not He would not have inspired Paul to write about it in 1 Corinthians 11.This reminds me of the idea that God doesn't want us to eat meat. Really, then why did He put the wrong kind of teeth in my mouth? Apparently He gave males the wrong hair-growth DNA as well.

threebigrocks
Sep 25th 2008, 06:11 PM
Daniel 7:

"I kept looking Until thrones were set up,And the Ancient of Days took His seat; His vesture was like white snow And the hair of His head like pure wool His throne was ablaze with flames,Its wheels were a burning fire.

Revelation 1

His head and hairwere white like wool, as white as snow, and his eyes were like blazing fire.

White like wool, like pure wool. Doesn't say short, doesn't say long. Just refers to it being like fine wool and white.

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 06:44 PM
Taking the entirey of the debate into account, did Jesus have long hair like the pictures and movies suggest? Historically, Jewish men in some regions of the Roman Empire did wear long hair as a sign of defiance against Roman government, while in other regions hair was worn short. Since Nazareth was one region where Jewish men DID wear long hair as a sign of protest against Rome. Therefore, it's possible that Jesus had long hair. However, the Gospels themselves provide no definitive physical descriptions of him to verify it 100& either way.

Unfortunately, the Internet is full of absurd Fundamentalist websites whose information on the subject is rather suspect. Instead of confining the discussion solely to 1 Corinthians 11, let's discuss the Nazirite vows taken by such men as Samson and John the Baptist, of which it is said:

" 'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. (Numbers 6:5, NIV)

'Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. (Numbers 6:18, NIV)

If it's sinful for men to have long hair, then why did God make having it a prerequisite of a rite that symbolized holiness, and then require them to take the long hair that they trimmed after their period of separation and offer it as a fellowship offering which brought God closer to them? Some Dispensationalists likely will argue that this is from the OT and doesn't apply to the NT matter at hand, but Scripture says that God remains the same yesterday, today and forever. He remains consistent in both his character and purposes. If he didn't, that would really call Divine foreknowledge into question. God is not going to declare something good at one moment that he only intends to condemn as a sinful act in the future.

Emanate
Sep 25th 2008, 06:53 PM
Historically, Jewish men in some regions of the Roman Empire did wear long hair as a sign of defiance against Roman government, while in other regions hair was worn short. Since Nazareth was one region where Jewish men DID wear long hair as a sign of protest against Rome. Therefore, it's possible that Jesus had long hair. However, the Gospels themselves provide no definitive physical descriptions of him to verify it 100& either way.

Unfortunately, the Internet is full of absurd Fundamentalist websites whose information on the subject is rather suspect. Instead of confining the discussion solely to 1 Corinthians 11, let's discuss the Nazirite vows taken by such men as Samson and John the Baptist, of which it is said:

" 'During the entire period of his vow of separation no razor may be used on his head. He must be holy until the period of his separation to the LORD is over; he must let the hair of his head grow long. (Numbers 6:5, NIV)

'Then at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting, the Nazirite must shave off the hair that he dedicated. He is to take the hair and put it in the fire that is under the sacrifice of the fellowship offering. (Numbers 6:18, NIV)

If it's sinful for men to have long hair, then why did God make having it a prerequisite of a rite that symbolized holiness, and then require them to take the long hair that they trimmed after their period of separation and offer it as a fellowship offering which brought God closer to them? Some Dispensationalists likely will argue that this is from the OT and doesn't apply to the NT matter at hand, but Scripture says that God remains the same yesterday, today and forever. He remains consistent in both his character and purposes. If he didn't, that would really call Divine foreknowledge into question. God is not going to declare something good at one moment that he only intends to condemn as a sinful act in the future.

There is a possibility that Saul of Tarsus also was under the Nazirite vow. If he wasn't then he was instructed to go into the Temple with some under this vow to end their vow (Acts 21).

Whispering Grace
Sep 25th 2008, 07:17 PM
It just sounds like the effects of aging may be setting in.

I'm 36! :P


Don't go overboard in believing that your hair loss is some sort of Divine judgment. We live in fallen bodies that are in a continual state of decay.

I don't think it is Divine judgment. I don't believe God would judge me for being obedient to His Word.

scourge39
Sep 25th 2008, 11:35 PM
There is a possibility that Saul of Tarsus also was under the Nazirite vow. If he wasn't then he was instructed to go into the Temple with some under this vow to end their vow (Acts 21).

The consensus among Lukan scholars is that Paul did indeed take a Nazirite vow in Acts 21.

Alaska
Sep 26th 2008, 01:29 AM
And what does this mean....

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

Paul not only discusses the hair in the chapter but also the rightful place the man and woman possess in God's scheme of things.
Her hair is the natural covering given by God and is one of the natural things that designates her as a woman. It is part of her identity, hence it is a shame to cut it off.

Woman was made to be a help meet for the man, a suitable helper, yet they are heirs together.

As the angels are submissive to God and do his bidding, so women are to be subject to their husbands. The woman's long hair symbolises her acceptance of her place under the man in God's order, which is a parallel of the angels being under God.
Honour on her head and power on her head are closely related.
Hence, she has "power" on her head because of the angels.
Being made in the image of God and abiding in her rightful place, this power relates to her God given authority under the man in the same way that we would see angels possessing power as the result of being under God.

Many women do not realize the shame they are placing on themselves by cutting off their "glory".
Their long hair symbolises their respectful and honourable place as being created as a help for the man, both being in God's image.

Her covering (her hair) is a statement of her willing submission to God's natural and honourable order whereby she has accepted being "covered" by the man, which is to say she has accepted man (a husband) as over her, as "her head".
Her natural covering, (her hair) symbolises her spiritual covering of the man over her and God over the man. Ultimately God is her covering, but God has ordained that the man would cover her as God covers the man (or is the head of the man).

Paul is not at all speaking culturally. He is basing his ordinances, (which he is delivering to the churches by the authority of the Holy Spirit), on the purpose at creation; not on some passing, ultimately not important, cultural or traditional, man made viewpoint.

zombieCat
Sep 26th 2008, 02:57 AM
I agree that a woman's hair is her natural covering. Just curious--how does one come to the conclusion that hair is not a man's natural covering, when nature (through God's design) provides it? Even more so than a woman due to testosterone.

Alaska
Sep 26th 2008, 03:41 AM
I agree that a woman's hair is her natural covering. Just curious--how does one come to the conclusion that hair is not a man's natural covering, when nature (through God's design) provides it? Even more so than a woman due to testosterone.

The only way that we are able to come to conclusions on many points of concern is by looking into the word of God to see if it has anything to say about it.
We can argue with it and not agree, or not accept it because there is not reason behind it that satisfies our demand for reason.
[Desiring reason for why a thing is declared in the Word is a good thing.
But rejecting what is declared because reason is not provided in the Word is NOT a good thing.]

So discussing why a certain thing is the way it is, makes us think and dig deep.
The Word plainly declares that it is a shame for a man to have long hair. Paul is giving revelation from God as it was given to him and as it relates to God's purpose at creation and how it relates to us now.
Not only is it declared that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, but also it is strongly suggested, but not so plainly stated, that it is also a shame for a woman to have short hair. Makes plenty of sense.

As far as the reason why God's Word declares these things, that is a good thing to discuss.
So accept and discuss is the way to go.

To not accept because the question of "why" is not at first easily grasped is NOT the way to go.

The Word happens to address this topic of length of hair for men and women. This, like many other topics of concern, is revealed by God and not anything that we are able in and of ourselves to figure out.

We should respond with thankfulness and acceptance.
We should not react in a Pharisaical way of trying to find a loophole or excuse to get out from under what applies to us.

zombieCat
Sep 26th 2008, 06:01 AM
But rejecting what is declared because reason is not provided in the Word is NOT a good thing.I have no problem accepting things without knowing all the answers or understanding all the reasons. Where I have a challenge is in believing that a loving, benevolent God who truly desires for us to find Him, would have us believe the nonsensical. There is a huge difference between the two. And I just find it completely nonsensical to think that God would provide the genes to grow long hair and then tell us that it's sinful. Maybe I'm just a bit different than most--I find that, more often than not, when someone comes up against a nonsensical premise in the Bible, their first reaction is some flavor of "That's just the way it is, we just can't understand God." My first reaction is that I must be misunderstanding something, and even if it's commonly accepted, I question whether the common interpretation is correct. Not because I want scripture to say what I want it to say, but because I truly believe God is consistent and sensible, and that his sensibilities will show through His Word if correctly interpreted. If there is no way for a given issue to be plausible and sensible given the current interpretation, then I believe the current interpretation must be incorrect. That's just me.


We should not react in a Pharisaical way of trying to find a loophole or excuse to get out from under what applies to us.Ah, you turned my own tables on me...touche' :). I'll parry--the Pharisees were in the business of finding loopholes in order to hold people to that which wasn't intended, not to get them out from under it....

9Marksfan
Sep 26th 2008, 10:14 AM
I have no problem accepting things without knowing all the answers or understanding all the reasons. Where I have a challenge is in believing that a loving, benevolent God who truly desires for us to find Him, would have us believe the nonsensical. There is a huge difference between the two. And I just find it completely nonsensical to think that God would provide the genes to grow long hair and then tell us that it's sinful.

But isn't it easier for women's hair to grow long and men must have it cut or styled a particular way? When I wa sa very young Christian and wanted to grow my haor long once I'd started at uni in the early 80s, I found it really hard for it to grow long - it just grew OUT the way! Byt maybe that was just me.....


Maybe I'm just a bit different than most--

Do you mean because your hair grows long real easily?


I find that, more often than not, when someone comes up against a nonsensical premise in the Bible, their first reaction is some flavor of "That's just the way it is, we just can't understand God." My first reaction is that I must be misunderstanding something, and even if it's commonly accepted, I question whether the common interpretation is correct. Not because I want scripture to say what I want it to say, but because I truly believe God is consistent and sensible, and that his sensibilities will show through His Word if correctly interpreted. If there is no way for a given issue to be plausible and sensible given the current interpretation, then I believe the current interpretation must be incorrect. That's just me.

But in most cultures in most times, men's hair is shorter than women's - so that they can be distinguished - agreed?

Emanate
Sep 26th 2008, 12:20 PM
The consensus among Lukan scholars is that Paul did indeed take a Nazirite vow in Acts 21.


Thats great. What is a Lukan scholar?

ServantofTruth
Sep 26th 2008, 12:27 PM
I am uncomfortable with extremes, though i lean towards one end.

The extreme that says a verse or a few verses can be ignored because they are 'out of date' of a time/ culture.

The extreme of someone who won't listen when the culture of the time is explained. Just says i'll read the bible and believe what it says. Because this leads to misunderstanding, or at least shallow understanding.

I admit i am very near the end of the spectrum, that says every verse is valid today and must be followed. However to do that, you need a little back ground to follow it properly.

As long as the cultural understanding adds to our understanding of God's Word/ the bible i am comfortable - but as soon as someone suggest that culture makes a verse or passage invalid they have overstepped the mark.




BIG SofTy Soft outside, bible core. :pp

petepet
Sep 26th 2008, 01:05 PM
I am uncomfortable with extremes, though i lean towards one end.

The extreme that says a verse or a few verses can be ignored because they are 'out of date' of a time/ culture.

The extreme of someone who won't listen when the culture of the time is explained. Just says i'll read the bible and believe what it says. Because this leads to misunderstanding, or at least shallow understanding.

I admit i am very near the end of the spectrum, that says every verse is valid today and must be followed. However to do that, you need a little back ground to follow it properly.

As long as the cultural understanding adds to our understanding of God's Word/ the bible i am comfortable - but as soon as someone suggest that culture makes a verse or passage invalid they have overstepped the mark.




BIG SofTy Soft outside, bible core. :pp

I do agree with you here. What we must do is both recognise the cultural differences and at the same time ask what are the underlying principles. It would appear to me that the underlying principles here include the fact that the woman should in some way indicate that she recognises the authority of the man (especially if it is her husband), that she should in 'prophesying' in some way demonstrate her submission to overall male authority, that she recognises the need to dress in such a way that she would not be ashamed in front of the good angels, or attract the bad angels, that she wear her hair in such a way that she makes clear that she is a woman and not a man (many African women cannot grow their hair long), that she dress in such a way that the society that she lives in would recognise her as pure and chaste.

We also ought to recognise that the 'covering' in verse 15 is a different Greek word from that used earlier on. There must surely be some reason for that.

I am not convinced that married women in Corinth were covered in public whilst single women could be uncovered (I would be interested in archaeological proof). But even if it were so the morals of Corinth were so loose that I suspect that Christians would not have wanted to follow them. The truth is that in ancient society women kept themselves firmly covered up, often to a point where they could not be recognised.

zombieCat
Sep 26th 2008, 01:59 PM
But isn't it easier for women's hair to grow long and men must have it cut or styled a particular way? When I wa sa very young Christian and wanted to grow my haor long once I'd started at uni in the early 80s, I found it really hard for it to grow long - it just grew OUT the way! Byt maybe that was just me.....Sure, it's easier for men to have short hair, but it's equally as uneasy for either men or women to have long hair. A few years ago I had long hair, and yes, it did take extra effort take care of it. But not nearly as much effort as it takes my wife to care for hers.


Do you mean because your hair grows long real easily?No, I was making a distinction in the way I generally handle nonsensical issues vs. the way most Christians I know do.


But in most cultures in most times, men's hair is shorter than women's - so that they can be distinguished - agreed?That's one way cultures distinguish, but that's not necessitated. Another equally effective method is clothing.

zombieCat
Sep 27th 2008, 05:31 AM
As long as the cultural understanding adds to our understanding of God's Word/ the bible i am comfortable - but as soon as someone suggest that culture makes a verse or passage invalid they have overstepped the mark. Currently, there's another thread regarding men's vs. women's clothing, and the subject of culture came up there as well. Clearly, there is a law demanding that men do not wear women's clothing and vice versa. May I ask you, if you are married, does your wife wear pants? If so, how can this be justified?

I assert that these things are indeed cultural (even though this thread regards hair, the clothing perspective better shows the point of culture and overstepping the mark). What exactly is women's clothing? If you see a man wearing a skirt, you would say he is wearing women's clothing. Unless, of course, you are in Scotland. These things are indeed cultural. Given that, how can you say that accounting for culture is overstepping the mark?

Rebelnote
Sep 27th 2008, 05:51 AM
But in most cultures in most times, men's hair is shorter than women's - so that they can be distinguished - agreed?
Un, no. Men having "short short" hair and women having "long, long" hair is something made popular by Greek and Roman cultures.

Rebelnote
Sep 27th 2008, 05:57 AM
I think one thing we're all forgetting in this discussion is that God made various people to have various hair types. God is not a God who creates humans who by their very physical characteristics would end up living in sin..
For example, my sister's hair cannot grow very long, it's too thin and breaks off by the time it gets almost to her shoulders.

Many African American women cannot grow their hair long. One of my friends who is African American hasn't cut her hair her entire life, and it's only a about two inches long.
In fact, some of the beliefs expressed in this discussion were used to justify treating many African American women as prostitutes throughout history....

Just something to think about.

zombieCat
Sep 27th 2008, 06:12 AM
I think one thing we're all forgetting in this discussion is that God made various people to have various hair types. God is not a God who creates humans who by their very physical characteristics would end up living in sin..
For example, my sister's hair cannot grow very long, it's too thin and breaks off by the time it gets almost to her shoulders.

Many African American women cannot grow their hair long. One of my friends who is African American hasn't cut her hair her entire life, and it's only a about two inches long.
In fact, some of the beliefs expressed in this discussion were used to justify treating many African American women as prostitutes throughout history....

Just something to think about.I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I truly have a hard time believing God gives one hoot about how long my hair is, especially since He designed it to become long. Saying that He does care attributes pettiness to His character and makes Him too much like a niggling human, which leads me to believe that the human interpretation of scriptures relating to hair is incorrect. If I get to Heaven and find out I am wrong, I'll gladly do with fewer jewels in my crown, rather than having spent my life wasting time caring about something as trivial as how long someone's hair can be.

9Marksfan
Sep 27th 2008, 08:46 AM
Un, no. Men having "short short" hair and women having "long, long" hair is something made popular by Greek and Roman cultures.

What about Indian and other Asian cultures? Can't see they were influenced either by the Romans or the Greeks - or the Bible for that matter.

Richard H
Sep 27th 2008, 09:18 AM
I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I truly have a hard time believing God gives one hoot about how long my hair is, especially since He designed it to become long. Saying that He does care attributes pettiness to His character and makes Him too much like a niggling human, which leads me to believe that the human interpretation of scriptures relating to hair is incorrect. If I get to Heaven and find out I am wrong, I'll gladly do with fewer jewels in my crown, rather than having spent my life wasting time caring about something as trivial as how long someone's hair can be.
Hi zombieCat,
You made me drag out my dictionary.

Richard

Jude
Sep 27th 2008, 10:01 AM
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/Julius.jpg

When in Rome do as the Romans do :hmm:

Jude



http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u298/hogndog/twocents.gif

valleybldr
Sep 27th 2008, 10:17 AM
Many African American women cannot grow their hair long. One of my friends who is African American hasn't cut her hair her entire life, and it's only a about two inches long.
Just something to think about.
I thought that was what headcoverings (during prayer) were for.

Has anyone discussed "submission." I mean it may not be PC but it's the main point of the passage is it not?

I look forward to reading the thread (instead of occasionally skimming it) when I get some time.

todd

valleybldr
Sep 27th 2008, 10:30 AM
I've been a Christian since 1985, and can honestly say that every sermon I've ever heard preached on the passage under discussion, which have been more than I'd care to remember, invariably failed to include verse 16, which freed preachers up to place a yoke of legalism on their hearers. I don't every remember hearing a sermon preached about this but it seems whenever Scripture says something that infringes on our own personal sovereignty to do what we want.... someone will start wielding the "L" word around. todd

Rebelnote
Sep 27th 2008, 04:05 PM
What about Indian and other Asian cultures? Can't see they were influenced either by the Romans or the Greeks - or the Bible for that matter.
I can't speak for all cultures, but many Asian cultures the men had longer hair usually the same length as women, they just had different styles.

In early Persian cultures many men also had longer hair until Islam became popular.

I'm not saying no other culture had men with short hair, and women with long. But I took a world religion and culture class, and the western style of men having short hair (and clean shaven), and women having long hair came from Greek and Roman cultures. In Jewish culture, the men had longer hair than the Romans.


I thought that was what headcoverings (during prayer) were for.
To suggest a woman needs a head covering because her hair can't grow? That has legalism, discrimination, and racial superiority written all over it.


Has anyone discussed "submission." I mean it may not be PC but it's the main point of the passage is it not?
When I read the original passages, a cultural response that makes perfect sense to me is that the culture of the time valued hair lengths as submission and that is why Paul described it as such.

Rebelnote
Sep 27th 2008, 04:35 PM
Another thing I was thinking about as well.

Male/female hair lengths were never designated under the Law in the OT.
(At least I couldn't find any)

BJ_BOBBI_JO
Sep 27th 2008, 05:07 PM
I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I truly have a hard time believing God gives one hoot about how long my hair is, especially since He designed it to become long. Saying that He does care attributes pettiness to His character and makes Him too much like a niggling human, which leads me to believe that the human interpretation of scriptures relating to hair is incorrect. If I get to Heaven and find out I am wrong, I'll gladly do with fewer jewels in my crown, rather than having spent my life wasting time caring about something as trivial as how long someone's hair can be.

Well said and I agree!

It is like:
humm, should we get all legalistic over hair length and judge others? Or should we be more concerned over our own selves and our own relationships with Jesus?

Why is it that most of the time the long long long threads are the ones of ppl dwelling on little issues that is not going to make them either get to or not get to heaven?

Why do ppl get hung up on the small stuff and dwell? Legalism. It is a good tatic of satan to get ppl off the real path.

So yall keep on keeping on with that. Good luck.

valleybldr
Sep 27th 2008, 10:32 PM
Another thing I was thinking about as well.

Male/female hair lengths were never designated under the Law in the OT.
(At least I couldn't find any) You couldn't find the Torah principle that said the two sexes should look different? todd

Rebelnote
Sep 27th 2008, 11:16 PM
Yes, but hair length was not described.

In fact, the verses I found described longer hair on men as a sign of holiness.

zombieCat
Sep 27th 2008, 11:29 PM
You couldn't find the Torah principle that said the two sexes should look different? toddI notice from your avatar that your face is clean-shaven (well, mostly ;) ). Could not the case be made that a lack of facial hair removes a major distinction between men and women? I'm not really trying to bust on you, and no, I don't think you should grow a beard (unless you want to)--I'm just showing that the length of the hair on one's head doesn't need to be the primary method of distinguishing men from women.

Rufus_1611
Sep 28th 2008, 12:46 AM
Old habits die hard, apparently. Are you mocking Paul in this statement?

Rufus_1611
Sep 28th 2008, 12:49 AM
This reminds me of the idea that God doesn't want us to eat meat. Really, then why did He put the wrong kind of teeth in my mouth? Apparently He gave males the wrong hair-growth DNA as well. The command of abstaining from the eating of meat is a doctrine of devils. The doctrine that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is a doctrine of God uttered by Paul.

valleybldr
Sep 28th 2008, 01:28 AM
I'm just showing that the length of the hair on one's head doesn't need to be the primary method of distinguishing men from women.
I don't know who said hair "need[s] to be the primary method of distinguishing men from women." That's not the point of the passage. todd

zombieCat
Sep 28th 2008, 02:30 AM
Are you mocking Paul in this statement?No. If I'm mocking anything, it's the idea that Paul, after his conversion, continued the the brow-knitting legalism of the Pharisees.

zombieCat
Sep 28th 2008, 02:37 AM
I don't know who said hair "need[s] to be the primary method of distinguishing men from women." That's not the point of the passage. toddIt was inferred. Is your point not that men and women both having long hair blurs the ability to distinguish them? If not, I apologize for the incorrect inference.

zombieCat
Sep 28th 2008, 02:43 AM
The command of abstaining from the eating of meat is a doctrine of devils. The doctrine that it is a shame for a man to have long hair is a doctrine of God uttered by Paul.I only included the meat reference because it is funny as well as apropos to the idea that God's standards for us go directly against His very design of us.

People do use scripture to support the idea that God doesn't want us to eat meat, albeit they do so incorrectly. My point is that it's at least within the realm of possibility that the scriptures used to prove all men in all places for all time should have a certain length of hair may be interpreted incorrectly as well.

Richard H
Sep 28th 2008, 05:37 AM
No. If I'm mocking anything, it's the idea that Paul, after his conversion, continued the the brow-knitting legalism of the Pharisees.

Setting aside this discussion for a moment...


Please excuse me while I roll on the floor a bit. :rofl:

Richard

starchild
Sep 28th 2008, 06:37 AM
Uh, haven't you watched all of those extremely realistic accounts of the Bible on DVD? Even Jesus has a long flowing mane, blue eyes, a small white man nose, and speaks with an english accent. OBVIOUSLY we're missing out on something here...

Ok, so hollywood aside, I wouldn't really wonder to much about this subject, unless of course some of those women from that Christian school i went to back in 1992 show up (they wore these funky doyles on their heads, and they liked to try and kiss little 6 year old boys, AHHHHH!!!!!)

Whew, anyway, if this is so spiritual a thing, why were there nazarit vows, shave your head, purify yourself at the temple and then let those lovely locks grows until you look like Fabio errr.... or until your nazerene vow came to an end (usually a pre-determined time frame involved here boys and girls).

Unless of course you're samson, then you get to have some AWESOME hair. I mean think about it, you could tie the jaw bone of a donkey into it and have an AWESOME flail... or... you could just.... wear it around your waist and rely on the Holy Spirit to give you the strength to accomplish the Lords will... you know, kind of like we do today?

Wow, look at that, from talking about how unimportant hair can be to talking about the Holy Spirit, something that IS important. Now THAT's a reason to flip your doyles!

later

valleybldr
Sep 28th 2008, 10:44 AM
My point is that it's at least within the realm of possibility that the scripturto the idea that God's standards for us go directly against His very design es used to prove all men in all places for all time should have a certain length of hair may be interpreted incorrectly as well.
What is the foundational principle/focus of the first part of 1 Cor 11? Men's hair length is only mentioned in passing. The main teaching concerns women's longer hair length or headcovering as a sign of submission. Men's hear length is only gemane in it's relavancy to focal point of the passage...submission. todd

valleybldr
Sep 28th 2008, 10:54 AM
It was inferred. Is your point not that men and women both having long hair blurs the ability to distinguish them? If not, I apologize for the incorrect inference. Paul echos the general Torah principle against "catagory confusion" and says, in passing, the sexes should look different. Avoiding confusion between the sexes can happen in variety of ways given the culture/time period. If the general principle is understand then the rest of it takes care of itself. This is the Word of God and surely it's not going to be met with open hearts and minds to those who still want to maintain their own soverienty over their own lives. todd

zombieCat
Sep 28th 2008, 04:06 PM
What is the foundational principle/focus of the first part of 1 Cor 11? Men's hair length is only mentioned in passing. The main teaching concerns women's longer hair length or headcovering as a sign of submission. Men's hear length is only gemane in it's relavancy to focal point of the passage...submission. todd


Paul echos the general Torah principle against "catagory confusion" and says, in passing, the sexes should look different. Avoiding confusion between the sexes can happen in variety of ways given the culture/time period. If the general principle is understand then the rest of it takes care of itself. This is the Word of God and surely it's not going to be met with open hearts and minds to those who still want to maintain their own soverienty over their own lives. toddVery well-thought-out, well-said points. I wouldn't disagree with any of it.

ynnedenny
Sep 29th 2008, 03:54 AM
Well, I'm reasonably certain that nobody but the dimmest of the dim could mistake me for a woman. Either way, unless the Lord convicts me to do so, I won't be cutting my hair anytime soon.

threebigrocks
Sep 29th 2008, 04:00 AM
What is more important to God - a submissive heart or long flowing locks of which I cannot grow?

To clear it up - I'm NOT a guy. ;)

valleybldr
Sep 29th 2008, 09:11 AM
Well, I'm reasonably certain that nobody but the dimmest of the dim could mistake me for a woman. I guess it depends on the angle. Paul's point re: hair isn't about confusing the sexes. That's a piece of it but his point is submission and hair length as it pertains to it. todd

valleybldr
Sep 29th 2008, 09:15 AM
What is more important to God - a submissive heart or long flowing locks of which I cannot grow?

To clear it up - I'm NOT a guy. ;)Fallacy of the false dilemma. The answer is both and Paul is clear that headcoverings (if needed) can be used as feminine covering. Paul tends to be very practical such as we see in this passage. todd

Whispering Grace
Sep 29th 2008, 11:43 AM
What is more important to God - a submissive heart or long flowing locks of which I cannot grow?

Don't our actions reflect what is in our heart?

God obviously hasn't blessed me with a thick, flowing head of hair at this point in my life. But that's not an excuse on my part to take a pair of scissors to my hair and cut it off.

threebigrocks
Sep 29th 2008, 02:14 PM
Well, I've tried. It gets "so far" - and it just sorta stops.

What I do does reflect what's in my heart. But it's by nothing I do that changes my heart. Though, action and spoken word says a whole lot more than how my hair looks. Very, very few people would recognize a head of long hair as a testimony to Christ.

If my hair was long - and I didn't follow through in other ways does that covering still hold meaning?

Whispering Grace
Sep 29th 2008, 03:32 PM
If my hair was long - and I didn't follow through in other ways does that covering still hold meaning?

No. I am sure there are many women in my church who do not cut their hair simply because that's how they were raised.

But when our hearts are right and our outward actions reflect that, I believe that is pleasing to the Lord.