Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Are Christians ignoring a law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Are Christians ignoring a law

    should Christians Girls wear head coverings because the Bible says to do so in 1 Corinthians 11: 10 need to under stand more

  • #2
    Verse 15 says a woman's hair is given for a covering.

    15 But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.


    Kind of makes me wonder why so many Christian women have short hair if long hair is a glory to her. But I guess we could all argue about what, exactly, constitutes long.
    My Blog

    Comment


    • #3
      Some women just cannot physically grow their hair long - what should they do? And isn't the main principle in that passage that it should be obvious that the women are distinct from the men and should have a sign of authority on their head? We are told to judge for ourselves what is right - but Paul pointed out that he has NO SUCH CUSTOM (ie wearing a head covering) - and neither did the other churches! Folks seem to forget this key verse!

      Comment


      • #4
        that was a very important meaning Paul was trying to tell the churches... they can do that if their convictions allowed... some cultures don't do that... and Paul was trying to say that's ok... God's not trying to change people's culture, he's trying to change their hearts....
        The LORD bless you and keep you; The LORD make His face shine upon you,And be gracious to you; The LORD lift up His countenance upon you,And give you peace. Numbers 6:24-26

        Comment


        • #5
          Nothing that the Apostle Paul wrote was a law. The Law was written by Moses.

          Let's start with the context of 1 Corinthians 11.

          Verse 3
          Paul says that there is an order in authority. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man (husband) is the head of woman (the wife). None of this implies inequality or inferiority. Just as God is the head of Christ and yet they are One, the husband is the head of the wife, yet they also, are one flesh. He is her head, not her task-master just as God is the head of Christ, not His task-master.

          Verses 11-12
          Paul says that the man and the woman are of equal worth in the sight of God. That while she is made for him....he could not exist without her. In the Lord, Paul says, they are nothing without each other.

          Verses 4 , 7, and 14
          Paul says that when a man prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that his head should be uncovered. In fact, he says that his hair should be relatively short compared to a woman's hair. Note that no particular length is specified. He is to look like a man. He is to bring glory to God in his appearance and because his head (Christ) is invisible, (note*...this is my opinion) he cannot visibly show a sign of submission to the invisible.

          Verses 5, 6, and 10
          Paul says that when a woman prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that her head should be covered. He mentions a head covering, but also makes note that her hair, in it's relative longer length than a man's is a covering in and of itself. He mentions "shorn" women. There were pagan temple prostitutes (both men and women) who shaved their heads. These women were notorious. Paul states that relatively longer hair (note that no specific length is mentioned) shows that a wife recognizes the headship of her husband and therefore brings glory to him. Not in a worshipful sense because she is not inferior to him or unworthy of a voice in the relationship, but in a sense of respect for him, as she is asked to do anyway. Also, (note* this is my opinion) a wife's head, the husband is visible, and therefore she can show a tangible respect of his authority with a covering or with hair at least coming to the bottom of her neck.

          Paul also mentions that she should do this for the benefit of angels. The angels in heaven with God have no concept of a relationship with Him. Christ didn't die for those angels. So when a woman shows respect for her authority (not a mealy-mouthed inferior status), the angels are impressed and learn.

          Why do Christian women today not wear a head covering around their husbands or in church when they pray or prophesy?

          Some do. But, burkahs and long flowing robes, aren't the cultural norms anymore. However, respect for authority never goes out of style. A woman can keep relatively lengthy hair, (from a longer "bob") and lengthier and still be in tune with Paul's explanation.

          Moreover, one can "dress" the part, but not believe the part in one's heart. A man could possibly have short hair and still beat his wife and treat her like the chief-cook and bottle washer. How can he have respect for his authority, Christ, if he does not obey God's command to love his wife more than his own body. Love is an action word, not an emotion. He, like Christ, is to sacrifice himself daily for her sake....in every imaginable way possible.

          And a wife could have hair so long that she can sit on it and wear head covering to church all of the time and still disrespect her husband and mumble and gripe all of the time behind his back. How can she have respect for God's Word and Christ, if she doesn't treat her husband with the proper respect? She, like the church, is to deny herself daily and do whatever it takes to make her husband feel respected.

          So, just as circumcision used to be an outward sign of a relationship with God and now circumcision of the heart is what is warranted, a literally cloth head covering was symbolic of a woman's respect for her husband when she prayed and prophecied, but an attitudinal "covering" of the heart goes a lot farther.

          I think that it is more important to stress that a woman behaves with respect than if she shows respect with a piece of cloth, but for those women who do wear head coverings, I hold them in just as high esteem as I do myself.
          sigpic
          ".....it's your nickel"

          Comment


          • #6
            However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.

            16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

            17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
            18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
            19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
            20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
            21The rings, and nose jewels,
            22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
            23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
            24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
            25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.

            and...

            9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
            10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

            And yet women today adorn themselves with makeup, jewels, and all the latest fashions, with their hair curled or straightened or braided or died or any combination there of. This also adds to the sins of men who then go after them in lusting fashion. This does not excuse the men as we are to pursue those things of the spirit and not of the flesh. But I would like to see more women practicing modesty.

            Comment


            • #7
              In the time of Jesus, prostitutes had short hair. Paul is talking about clutural respect. Did you know that women couldn't even enter the Temple? Not only that, they couldn't ask their husbans a question at the Temple. A question would bring shame to their husbans. I am sure that they are many women today that are glad that they don't live in that culture.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by phaeton426 View Post
                However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.
                I agree with you.

                16Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet:

                17Therefore the LORD will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts.
                18In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon,
                19The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers,
                20The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings,
                21The rings, and nose jewels,
                22The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins,
                23The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails.
                24And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty.
                25Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate shall sit upon the ground.
                However, this passage from Isaiah 3, while using the imagery of an immodest woman is not a directive imperative to the women of Israel. This passage is a metaphoric condemnation of all of His people at the time and not directly intended to any particular people. The people understood what a brazen woman looked like, and thus the imagery.

                The book of Psalms and the Song of Solomon also uses the phrase "daughters of Judah" and "daughters of Zion" calling them to rejoice over God and his Law and specifically over the ordination of Solomon. Of course, this is not literally to women only, but to all of Judah and Zion. Again, the imagery of the woman is metaphoric.


                9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;
                10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.
                This passage is specifically addressed to women. Note it says not with "costly" array. This means that light make-up, nice clothes, and modest jewelry are perfectly fine. Anything that brings attention to you in a bold manner (Tammy Faye Baker) or that boasts and brags of your wealth isn't modest. Women are to be more concerned with behaving in a Christ-like manner than to be overly concerned with their appearance. Unfortunately, men aren't always attracted to a Christ-like manner, but the appearance, thus the sad state of some women who dress immodestly to gain a man's favor because she feels that is her only recourse. These women are to be pitied.
                sigpic
                ".....it's your nickel"

                Comment


                • #9
                  For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

                  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
                  -Galatians 5:14;18

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Gabriel250 View Post
                    should Christians Girls wear head coverings because the Bible says to do so in 1 Corinthians 11: 10 need to under stand more
                    I think I'll choose to ignore this one.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by jayne View Post
                      Nothing that the Apostle Paul wrote was a law. The Law was written by Moses.


                      In many ways this is a really excellent post, but you raise one or two matters I'd like to comment upon. Do you accept that what Paul wrote were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37)?


                      Let's start with the context of 1 Corinthians 11.

                      Verse 3
                      Paul says that there is an order in authority. God is the head of Christ. Christ is the head of man. The man (husband) is the head of woman (the wife). None of this implies inequality or inferiority. Just as God is the head of Christ and yet they are One, the husband is the head of the wife, yet they also, are one flesh. He is her head, not her task-master just as God is the head of Christ, not His task-master.

                      Verses 11-12
                      Paul says that the man and the woman are of equal worth in the sight of God. That while she is made for him....he could not exist without her. In the Lord, Paul says, they are nothing without each other.

                      Verses 4 , 7, and 14
                      Paul says that when a man prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that his head should be uncovered. In fact, he says that his hair should be relatively short compared to a woman's hair. Note that no particular length is specified. He is to look like a man. He is to bring glory to God in his appearance and because his head (Christ) is invisible, (note*...this is my opinion) he cannot visibly show a sign of submission to the invisible.


                      Very interesting point, which I'd never thought of before - it has much merit!

                      Verses 5, 6, and 10
                      Paul says that when a woman prays or prophecies (preaches or teaches or brings a word from God to the body) that her head should be covered. He mentions a head covering, but also makes note that her hair, in it's relative longer length than a man's is a covering in and of itself. He mentions "shorn" women. There were pagan temple prostitutes (both men and women) who shaved their heads. These women were notorious. Paul states that relatively longer hair (note that no specific length is mentioned) shows that a wife recognizes the headship of her husband and therefore brings glory to him. Not in a worshipful sense because she is not inferior to him or unworthy of a voice in the relationship, but in a sense of respect for him, as she is asked to do anyway. Also, (note* this is my opinion) a wife's head, the husband is visible, and therefore she can show a tangible respect of his authority with a covering or with hair at least coming to the bottom of her neck.

                      Paul also mentions that she should do this for the benefit of angels. The angels in heaven with God have no concept of a relationship with Him.


                      Can we really say that? Didn't Adam and Eve have a relationship with God before the Fall? Surely what you mean is that they don't have REDEMPTIVE relationship with Him?

                      Christ didn't die for those angels. So when a woman shows respect for her authority (not a mealy-mouthed inferior status), the angels are impressed and learn.


                      This is a notoriously difficult verse but I think that what is more likely is that Paul is referring to the fallen angels who REJECTED God's authority - and it is for the WOMEN (and I guess everyoen present) to learn about God's order in things and proper submission and respect for the authoirty of THEIR head - lest some of them suffer the same fate as the angels who fell.....

                      Why do Christian women today not wear a head covering around their husbands or in church when they pray or prophesy?

                      Some do. But, burkahs and long flowing robes, aren't the cultural norms anymore. However, respect for authority never goes out of style.


                      Well said - excellent point!

                      A woman can keep relatively lengthy hair, (from a longer "bob") and lengthier and still be in tune with Paul's explanation.

                      Moreover, one can "dress" the part, but not believe the part in one's heart. A man could possibly have short hair and still beat his wife and treat her like the chief-cook and bottle washer. How can he have respect for his authority, Christ, if he does not obey God's command to love his wife more than his own body. Love is an action word, not an emotion. He, like Christ, is to sacrifice himself daily for her sake....in every imaginable way possible.

                      And a wife could have hair so long that she can sit on it and wear head covering to church all of the time and still disrespect her husband and mumble and gripe all of the time behind his back. How can she have respect for God's Word and Christ, if she doesn't treat her husband with the proper respect? She, like the church, is to deny herself daily and do whatever it takes to make her husband feel respected.


                      Excellent and very important points.

                      So, just as circumcision used to be an outward sign of a relationship with God and now circumcision of the heart is what is warranted, a literally cloth head covering was symbolic of a woman's respect for her husband when she prayed and prophecied, but an attitudinal "covering" of the heart goes a lot farther.

                      I think that it is more important to stress that a woman behaves with respect than if she shows respect with a piece of cloth,


                      Absolutely - this ties in very much with Gal 6:15.

                      but for those women who do wear head coverings, I hold them in just as high esteem as I do myself.
                      Are we meant to hold ourselves in high esteem? Paul considered he was the chief of sinners - we are to humble ourselves (lit. put ourselves down) in order that God may exalt us in due time (future, btw, not present). But that's maybe the topic for another thread!

                      Great, insightful post - thanks!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                        In many ways this is a really excellent post, but you raise one or two matters I'd like to comment upon. Do you accept that what Paul wrote were the commandments of the Lord (1 Cor 14:37)?
                        Yes.

                        I see Paul as saying, "You can't disagree with me on any of this because I didn't say it....God did." The directives that Paul gave throughout the New Testament do not have the same purpose as the Law of Moses. The Law was intended to show you that you were a sinner and the Law couldn't not save you.

                        Pauls directives were how to behave after the fact of becoming a Christian. While obeying them didn't and still doesn't save you, Paul's commandments were to show that you were a Christian.

                        I assumed that the original poster was coming from a legalistic standpoint of requiring Christians to base their righteousness on their works. That's why I said that what Paul wrote was not the Law.

                        If I do not wear a literal cloth on my head, but do wear relatively longer hair than a man and give the appearance of a woman and behave with respect, then I am just as righteous as the woman who does the same thing, yet does it with a cloth on her head.

                        I was trying to take away the legalistic view of headcoverings.


                        Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                        Can we really say that? Didn't Adam and Eve have a relationship with God before the Fall?
                        Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                        Surely what you mean is that they don't have REDEMPTIVE relationship with Him?


                        Yes.....angels do not have a redemptive relationship with God. Fallen angels cannot be redeemed because they were already and literally in God's Holy Presence and were 100% consumed by His Glory when they decided to leave Him and follow satan. The promise of one day living with God in His heaven is moot for them, because they were already there. The notion of turning away from evil and turning to God for redemption is invalid for them. The angels who remained behind and stayed with God have nothing to be saved from....no evil nature to be redeemed from. They exist as they were originally created - God's obedient servants. They aren't considered sinless - only Jesus Christ is sinless. They are just created and obedient servants.




                        Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                        This is a notoriously difficult verse but I think that what is more likely is that Paul is referring to the fallen angels who REJECTED God's authority - and it is for the WOMEN (and I guess everyoen present) to learn about God's order in things and proper submission and respect for the authoirty of THEIR head - lest some of them suffer the same fate as the angels who fell.....


                        hmmmm........let me chew on that a while.


                        Originally posted by 9Marksfan View Post
                        Are we meant to hold ourselves in high esteem? Paul considered he was the chief of sinners - we are to humble ourselves (lit. put ourselves down) in order that God may exalt us in due time (future, btw, not present). But that's maybe the topic for another thread!


                        I believe that a healthy self-esteem is not contradictory to humility. I'm not talking about a boastful self-promotion, but a rejoicing that God fearfully and wonderfully made me and called me to be His child and gave me gifts, talents, joys, tears, and a standard by which to live my life (His Word).

                        I meant that I would not look down upon a woman who insisted that a literal headcovering was indicative of righteousness (as many women of this type of thinking do).

                        Have a blessed day -
                        sigpic
                        ".....it's your nickel"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by phaeton426 View Post
                          However women do need to exercise modesty which is missed in today's culture.

                          But I would like to see more women practicing modesty.
                          For goodness sakes yes! I have always been pretty modest and thank goodness my daughter is super-modest. I can hardly get her to wear a bathing suit (she's 13). The girls she goes to school with look like little tramps...I know that sounds harsh, but they do. And who's fault is it? Their parents! They buy them the clothes and watch them walk out the door with them on!

                          We would have less sexual problems in our society if women would practice more modesty. Men are driven by what they see, and women use it like a weapon (usually unknowingly). You poor guys! How hard it is to keep your mind pure!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Sold Out View Post
                            For goodness sakes yes! I have always been pretty modest and thank goodness my daughter is super-modest. I can hardly get her to wear a bathing suit (she's 13). The girls she goes to school with look like little tramps...I know that sounds harsh, but they do. And who's fault is it? Their parents! They buy them the clothes and watch them walk out the door with them on!
                            While I agree with you that modesty is important and has been ignored lately in our culture, I take exception with you calling these young girls "little tramps".

                            They are only behaving the way in which they have been taught or allowed. If, as you say, this is their parents' fault - the why the name calling?

                            And besides, what's your name for the boys who actively pursue these little tramps?

                            When Johnny is wildly popular with the girls, his name is stud, hero, a man's man, and a ladie's man, and he is revered by other boys and dreamed about by the girls.

                            When Susie is wildly popular with the boys, her name is slut, whore, tramp, and skank. She is shunned by other girls and crudely fantasized about by the boys.

                            Originally posted by Sold Out View Post
                            We would have less sexual problems in our society if women would practice more modesty.
                            Again, I agree that modesty is vitally important.

                            But do you really believe that the multi-billion $ on-line pornography industry would shut down and that the multi-billion $ phone sex/computer sex industry would shut down if women in our neighborhoods simply didn't bare their mid-sections or made sure that their skirts came to their knee?

                            What about the women in the Middle East who are raped at just the same rate as everywhere else despite the fact that they are covered literally from head to toe with a sack? What did they do wrong or immodest?

                            You are making the same, tired, stereotypical accusation that women are the blame for the ills of man. Do you really mean that?

                            Instead of focusing on the sexuality of the woman and her possibly being exploited or yes, even exploiting her own self by dressing or behaving immodestly, why not start with the demand for the exploitation? Why do Christians always seem to make the men, the source of the demand, the victims?

                            We can keep our skirts down and our legs crossed and our bodies decently covered, but that isn't going to alleviate the sexual sins of our society because our the sexual ills of our society don't start with our dress codes.


                            Originally posted by Sold Out View Post
                            Men are driven by what they see, and women use it like a weapon (usually unknowingly). You poor guys! How hard it is to keep your mind pure!
                            Yes, men are visually stimulated.

                            But how can a woman use "it" like a weapon and do it unknowingly? That makes no sense. Either you are using your body to have your needs met or you are not. What about the weary young mother who is dressed in a baggy sweat suit and is trying to carry her crying 2-year-old in one arm and push a grocery buggy with the other? What if the baby pulls on the neck of her shirt and exposes her lacy bra strap and the man in the same grocery aisle begins to wonder what she would look like without that baggy sweat suit? What did she do that was immodest? What did she do that was using "it" like weapon?

                            Yes, there are women who use their sexuality to get ahead in life. But women have been told throughout the eons that this is our ONLY way to get anything.

                            It's a lie, obviously. Women are just a intelligent, able to lead in their chosen fields, and capable of decision-making as men are. But, some women fall into the trap of that lie and use their sexuality. They are to be pitied.

                            I don't mean to sound so much like a cyber-bully and I apologize if I offend you. This post isn't so much of a reaction to what you said as it is a reaction to years of watching us as Christians generically and blanketly make women the scape goat for what goes on in a man's heart.
                            sigpic
                            ".....it's your nickel"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I said they 'looked' like little tramps...not that they were. But I understand your point. Sorry.

                              I can be a cyber-bully too...ha ha. I took no offense at your post.

                              The multi-million dollar porn industry is a RESULT of women becoming lax with their morals (including modesty). I'm really speaking in terms of the past more than the present. What's done is done now...and there's no turning back in that respect.

                              My son is 18 and is just like any other guy. About a year ago his girlfriend wanted to go swimming and he asked her to wear a t-shirt over her bikini. She refused! She said she would wear what she wanted. (she's a good Christian girl by the way). He tried to explain to her that it would help HIM if she were a little more modest, but she refused, so he didn't go swimming with her. I applaud my precious son for that decision. Even when that silly girl couldn't see he was trying to have pure thoughts about her, she just wanted her way. That's kind of where I was going with that post.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X