Women's Hair

Peace of Christ to everyone.

I have listed this three times about what Paul was meaning when he stated, "even nature itself" teaches us that long hair is a dishonor?

In I Cor. 11:13-16 Paul is presenting an arguement for conformity to the common church practice. Versus 14-15 contain a final appeal to the sense of propriety that the contemporary Greek society would consider "natural".

He is not saying that long hair is a disgrace to all nations or whatever. However in the contemporary Greek society of that time it was disgraceful for a man to have long hair.

 

I agree TWade..

I dont know what else to say.

I feel that they are saying that since there is no length mentioned, that it doesnt mean anything.. so, a man with hair down his back is fine, because by some people's standards, that is short.. likewise, a woman with super short hair like Demi Moore in the early nineties, is also perfectly fine, because by some people's standards, that would be long..

My hands are up on this one.. There is nothing more to say.

 

What is short? What is long?

Unless you answer that, we do not know what you mean. It is that simple.

We cannot honestly discuss this without that information.....show why don't you tell us.

 

Emily, do a search on Hair and you'll find a lot of previous threads on this subject. You're in the vast minority here and most of us are tired of fussing over hair and dresses only and avoid the discussions. However, you'll find lots of thoughts by doing a search. If you need the password for archived threads, the passwords are the year of the thread, i.e. 2003, 2002, etc.

Diane

 

like I said Jason, there is nothing else to say.

The bible doesnt mention exact measured length.

What else can I say?

 

btw.

I DO understand the point you are trying to make..

I simply disagree that it is a valid point.

 

Major on the majors and minor on the minors. Opinions are just that. The next time someone hears a preacher preach on hair length just ask that preacher how long a man's hair was in scripture. Ask him again how long Jesus' hair was.

 

ok there is a hint in the bible as to how long is long or short.
Its in 1Ti 2:9
In 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;

I'm assuming if a womans hair is too short to be broided.....then its too short (although she is not to do that) So likewise it goes to show to me if I can broided my hubby's hair.......(LOL just the thought of that would be too funny!) But is that what ya'll are looking for? But then agian why would we want to be back under the law in hair bondage of all things? JMHO (just my humble opinion)

Music4Him

 

"Major on the majors and minor on the minors."


I dont believe in majoring on the minors.. I havent looked on a woman with short hair with disgust.

but the bible does say IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, not the law... that for a woman to have long hair, it is her glory..

It does say that.. SO far nobody has contested that.

What I see here is two sides

Your side= Since it doesnt say length, then we cant discuss it.. It doesnt matter. Everyone has a right to their own hair lengths!!!


My side= nope.. It doesnt mention length. Im not arguing that, but I will use proper discernment and understanding and wear my hair long because the scripture says it is my glory.


it basically comes down to this..

just because it doesnt mention "exact length" doesnt make the scripture go away.

The bible also says that drunkeness is a sin.. but what is drunkeness? for some it is one beer, for some it is 9 beers..

well, since it doesnt mention exactly what is drunk, then it doesnt matter, and everyone has the right to their own amount of alcohol!

 

Diane

Normally, I am not a fussy person.

In fact, its not the hair thing that makes me post like this.. It is the fact that the only way you can say it is not like it is, is if you blatently ignore this scripture..

and that is what makes me mad.

Emily

 

There is no way biblically you can even try to give a hair length. Your idea of long and short are probably different then every other persons idea of long and short. And God does not tell us.

My husband and I certainly do look different from each other.

Since God does not give the standard we must go by(by such I mean where on the neck is short enough for men, where on the back is long enough for women), then where are we get that standard? Seems your comfortable making it up not only for yourself but everyone else too without scripture to back it up.

Well I see nothing in scripture about my hair I am in disobedience to God. No where does it tell me I have to have to long enough to a certain point or it is disobedience. I have repeatedly asked for scripture and as of yet you have not provided it.

I have already sited nature on this topic. Go back and see my post. Since you disagreed with nature, I asked you to explain. As of yet you have been unable to do so.

 

It appears even you do not know exactly what you mean, you do not once give biblical evidence. I for one am not willing to take what someone made up as biblical evidence. Again, as of yet not bible verses are given.

 

If the bible doesn't, why do you?

 

Ah HA,
use your discernemnt and understanding for yourself. What about us? Do we go by your discernment and understanding too?
Seems you want to make the length rules for everyone, not just yourself.

No one wants scripture to go away, again, having to make stuff up to try and prove your point.

 

TWade

If you never look at the society they lived in you can not understand what was going on that Paul wrote somethings in scripture, and what it meant to the people then. Finding just what it meant to them is only part of good bible study.


Emily

No one has even said anything about ignoring scripture. What we take offense at is someone adding to scripture, making assumptions not totally based on scripture and then telling everyone else if they do not do as you say(by your personal interpretation) then they are disobedient.

 

1 CORINTHIANS 11:6 -- "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."

One of the problems with this passage is discerning the nature of the head covering required for the woman. It is obvious that God requires that the woman have a token of submission to authority on her head. She is to be covered. Verse 15 says her hair is given for a covering. There are two different interpretations which are commonly adopted in this regard: (1) The hair is intended to be the covering throughout the passage. (2) The hair is the natural covering, but there is to be an additional covering spoken of in verses 4-7.

I believe the first position is correct

Those who believe verses 4-7 refer to a separate veil or head covering point to two things to prove their position: (a) The Greek word in verses 4-7 is different from that used in verse 15. (now dont go yelling at me, I dont use the Greek - im saying what 'others' use as their 'proof') I don't believe this is significant, though. Both words mean basically the same thing: a veil, a covering. The Authorized Version correctly translates both words by the same English word, "covering."

I don't believe this proves that a different covering is referred to in verse 4-7 as in verse 15. The Greek New Testament frequently uses different Greek words as synonyms, just as we do in the English language. (b) The phrasing of verse 6, they say, proves that a covering separate from the hair is being discussed. This is a stronger argument, but I do not believe it is necessary to interpret verse 6 as speaking of a separate covering. I believe the verse means this: If a woman refuses to wear her hair long for a proper covering and token of authority, if she wants to bob it like a man's hair, let her go ahead and shave it all off. By saying this, the Apostle is emphasizing with the strongest language the seriousness of this matter. It is obvious that is not proper for a woman's head to be shaved.

The Apostle's conclusion, therefore, is this: since it is disgraceful to be shaved, let the women be covered with their natural long hair. I believe there are some serious problems with the view that the woman's hair is to be covered with a separate covering or veil.

(1) If that is what the Apostle intended, why did he not give clear instructions about the nature of this separate covering? How large is it? What is its design? How is it worn? Someone might reply that the exact nature of the covering is not important, only the fact that some type of covering is used. Perhaps that is the case. It still seems strange to me that God would require a covering and not describe it for us. If, on the other hand, the covering is the hair itself, there would be no need to describe it (which further establishes my belief). The woman's natural long hair would be the covering. This is what I believe is the case.

(2) Similarly, if the Apostle intended to require women to wear a separate covering, why does the Scripture not give plain instructions as to exactly when and how these are to be worn? Is this covering only worn at church? Is it worn anytime the woman prays? Some groups which practice head coverings have devised long lists of laws about this. The problem is that they have set up a man-made legalism, because the Bible does not detail any instructions about coverings for women. (Quick deterant if you ask me, just keep thinking IF God says it i believe it,........ but did he?) If, on the other hand, the covering is the natural long hair itself, there is no need for detailed instructions. The woman wears her hair all of the time, so she has her proper covering at all times.

It has been asked how this verse would apply to racial distinctives. My thoughts are that long hair on a woman in any race or culture would be in contrast to the men of that culture. Hair does differ according to race, but the women of any particular race can have long hair by contrast to the men of that race.

Another question which invariably arises in the context of this passage is "How long is long?" It is similar to the question which long-haired men ask, "How short is short?" The answer is not difficult. Long hair on a woman, defined by this passage, is hair that is long enough to cover her head (11:6,15) and to mark her as distinctively female (11:14-15). The Bible does not say that she can never cut her hair. It does not say that her hair must be to her waist. It simply says it is to be long enough to be a covering of her head and to mark her as distinctively female in contrast to the man's short hair.

If a woman's hair is short like a man's, she is dishonoring her head and is sowing confusion in the created realm. If there is any question as to whether or not her hair is too short, it is too short. There should be no question in the minds of those who observe us that we are obeying God's Word. The Lord exhorts us to approve things that are excellent, not things which are mediocre and borderline (Phil. 1:10).

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

Commentators often express amazement and great uncertainty at this verse. I am amazed at the amazement! Why should this verse be considered so difficult to understand? Admittedly, we do not understand it thoroughly; we do not understand all of its implications. Like all Scripture, though, this verse means exactly what it says. God has not chosen to reveal everything to us, but He has revealed that which He wants us to know (Deut. 29:29). In plain language, the Bible states that women ought to have the sign of authority on their heads because of the angels. The context leaves no doubt that this refers to the hair which has been given to the woman for a covering (verse 15). That is plainly what the Bible says. To cut her hair short and manly is to disgrace her head and is to bring confusion into the created order. This is not something intended only for churches of the first century, and it is not an instruction intended simply for a special situation which existed in the church at Corinth. The Apostle says the things taught in this Epistle are ordinances of God for all churches (1 Cor. 7:17; 11:1-2; 14:33,37). The Apostle's arguments are based on permanent facts which will not change as long as this present earthly economy exists.


1 CORINTHIANS 11:14-16 -- "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God."

In this passage (verse 1-15), the Apostle teaches the created distinction between the man and the woman, and he applies this distinction to the issue of appearance and worship. The man worships God with his head uncovered, because he is the image and glory of God. The woman worships God with her head covered, because she is in a subordinate position to the man and is the glory of the man. There are two views of the head covering. Some believe this is a separate veil or covering of some sort which is placed over the head. In these churches it is customary for the women to wear a veil over their hair. In South Asia, it is customary for women to pull their soirees over their heads in the church services, particularly during times of prayer. This portrays a lovely and submissive attitude, and is commended. The custom in Western culture that men remove their hats when entering a church is based on this passage. This is a proper custom. I believe, though, that the covering spoken of in this passage is the hair itself. Verse 15 says, "if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." The hair is the natural covering God has given to the woman to signify her humility and submission. If she cuts it short, she is dishonoring herself and is displaying a rebellious spirit.

Likewise, the man's hair is to be short to signify his headship under Christ. The Levites in the Old Testament had to keep their hair short (Ezek. 44:20).

The meaning of 1 Corinthians 11:1-15 is not difficult to understand. What, though, does verse 16 mean? "If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God." In the context, the contention would be over the issue of hair and the distinction between the man and the woman in position and authority. There is, of course, great contention on this subject in our day. Women are ignoring the biblical injunctions which restrict them from teaching men and from taking authority over men. Both men and women are ignoring the biblical injunction pertaining to the proper hair length and its significance. Women are cutting their hair short, and men are wearing their hair long, all the while professing to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ. What is Paul saying in verse 16 about such contention? It appears that there are two possible meanings.

(1) It is possible that Paul is saying that the distinction between the man and the woman in position and authority and the significance of one's hair length is not very important and if someone does not agree with these things, the churches should not make an issue of it. If this is the meaning of verse 16, though, it would be a very strange thing. Why would God inspire this passage about authority and position and hair if it can be disregarded by the churches? If this is the meaning of verse 16, Paul would be saying, in essence, I have spent 15 verses teaching you the significance of hair length on a man and a woman, but it is not very important; and if you don't agree with it, we will not make an issue of it. I don't believe this is the meaning of the verse. Nowhere else in the Bible do we find the man of God telling us, "This is the will and law of God, but you are free to disagree with and ignore it if it doesn't suit you."

(2) I believe the true meaning of verse 16 is two-fold. First, it has to do with the spirit of contention itself. Paul is saying that if someone in the church is contentious about these matters, we have no such custom of contention. The church is not an institution in which each member can decide for himself what he will and will not obey in the New Testament Scriptures. In this same passage, in verse 2, Paul commended the Corinthian church for keeping the ordinances he had delivered to them. It makes no sense for him to say now that they are at liberty to disagree with the things he is teaching. In 1 Corinthians 14:37 he tells them that the things he was writing to them are the commandments of the Lord. The things Paul wrote in His epistles are for all churches of every century. Second, verse 16 is saying that if any person is contentious about these matters and claims that it is proper for a woman to have authority over men or to wear her hair short like a man, such an one should consider the custom of the churches. It was customary in all of the churches for women to assume a position of submission to the man and to wear their hair long as a symbol of their submission. Thus Paul concluded this subject by strengthening his argument in pointing to general custom among the apostles and churches.

http://www.momof9splace.com/headcoverings.html
Diane

 

donnA

in reguards to a certain length you said

"f the bible doesn't, why do you?" (give a certain length


Go through all of my posts. I never did mention any certain length. You wont find me doing it. All I have done is reiterate that the scripture says long for women, so.. I wear my hair long.. Right now I would say that my hair is about 3-4" below my shoulders.

I would also have to say to Diane, that I loved her post. It was put very eloquantly..

my final statement would have to be

"I think that women shoudl wear their hair long enough to cover their head, and to be distinctly female"


Is that better?

 

Why do you think that no one has contested it? Probably because we actually understand what it is saying! You may view us as beligerent for asking the same questions over and over, but that is only because if you do not answer the questions, we cannot properly discuss the topic! So, why not just answer the question?

1. We WANT to discuss it. Mostly to show you why it is important to understand what 'long' and 'short' mean.
2. why do you not think everyone has a right ot their own hair lengths? After all, you said length is cultural...and my culture (me) says short is something other than what you think it is.

So, is this 'proper discernment' providing you with a proper lenght for you hair? What if my 'proper discerment' gives me a much different perspective one short and long?

I didn't say that, I said it is useless to discuss without a proper understanding of the length! That is a different idea.

Uhm...that is the point. Length, much like drunkeness (in terms of what makes one person drunk vs another) is different by person.

Don't eat too much. Well, what is too much? Come on now, this isn't rocket science. And, by the way, it is not only a valid point, it is the point.

You really need to think about this a little more.

jason