Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Danny Hurley, Feb 5, 2008.
Why did Paul say "For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels"?
What is the book, chapter and verse so we can read it, please.
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
To The Angels. Angels are “sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Hebrews 1:14), and are intensely interested in the progress of the gospel and the people in the churches (I Peter 1:12; Ephesians 3:10). Evidently every true church has been assigned one or more angels to try to guard and guide it (note the seven letters from Christ to the churches, recorded in Revelation 2 and 3, each addressed to “the angel of the�church” (e.g., Revelation 2:1). Paul was reminding the women in the Corinthian church to keep the sign of “power” (or “authority”) on their heads, in view of the invisible presence of angels observing the church and its congregation. -- King James Defender's Bible
What has her hair got to do with this power?
What would that sign be? Is it a visible one?
Yes it would be. It is a head-covering. It is a command that, for the most part, western churches have chosen to dismiss for one reason or another. If you go back in history fifty years ago, almost all women wore hats. And so it was down the centuries. The Bible is very clear on this command. Why women neglect to obey this straightforward command of Scripture today is beyond me.
Because in some cultures, long hair is seen as a sign of submission or piety. Our culture mostly doesn't view it as such any longer and submission becomes less a matter of how long your hair is (an insignificant thing anyway) and more about how ones attitude and behavior signify ones submission to the idea of being Christ-like.
Are you saying her hat can be her covering? 1 cor 11- 15 says her hair is given her for a covering.
That is not a consistent interpretation of the passage.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven.
6 For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled. (ASV)
The ASV uses the less confusing translation of "veil" in verses five and six. It is a different Greek word than the one used in verse 15 which is also used in a different context.
If the hair were her covering in verse six, verse six would not make sense. It would read:
If a woman "has no hair" let her be shaved..." What sense is that? No. It means if a woman is not wearing a head-covering she ought to be so ashamed of herself that she should be willing to be shaved bald--a real sense of shame.
It was a sign of submission to the husband, or more accurately, a sign that the husband was the head of the house. It taught "headship." As Christ was the head of the man, so was the man the head of the woman.
Culture doesn't change the Word of God. The Word of God never changes. If culture changes, then it must change again to adhere to the commands of the Word of God. If our culture practices infant baptism, would you change your practice to adhere to the custom of infant baptism?
Okay, well, my hair reaches almost down to my waist, but other women cannot grow their hair this long, or even long at all. What happens then? I don't know anyone in our church who wears a veil, although there are women in this area who do. I don't ever see hats anymore, either.
If the majority practices wrong, does that make it right?
I'm saying it's physically impossible for some women to grow their hair long. What then?
That is not the major issue. That is in God's hands. That verse simply says:
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.
It is given in contrast to the command for a man not to have long hair, for it is a shame to him.
The command for the women is to have her head covered with an actual head-covering such as a hat.
1 Corinthians 11:5-6 But every woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled dishonoreth her head; for it is one and the same thing as if she were shaven. For if a woman is not veiled, let her also be shorn: but if it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be veiled.
I believe that the sign is submission. That is the theme here.
I do believe Paul's command for the woman to wear a head covering to be speaking of a veil, rather than a hat. Culture and Geographical location must have had a lot to do with it.
Women in that location were known to shave their heads and go and worship at the pagan temple of Diana (if I remember correctly, that is whose temple it was). Paul was clearly teaching submission, separation, and sanctification in this Chapter.
A major reason in my case is that no pastor (all male) I have ever had, in my over 50 years of consistent attendance in conservative SBC churches, has said that I should.
Nor has any associational, state, or national male leader of my denomination. Yet wrong or right in their stance, I do not believe they think or thought they have willfully dismissed Scripture.
The Scripture is clear that the woman's hair is her covering (veil). The covering was worn if her hair was shaved so she was not identified with the pagans of that location.
DHK misses the word "if" in both passages. If it be then do it.
Long hair/hats/veils are no longer considered necessary signs of a woman's submission to the Lord or her husband (if she has one).
However, if DHK wishes for his wife to wear such, then such is a decision for the two of them to make in submission to one another. So it is with the rest of us.
The "if" in these passages is a signal for the believer to use his own good sense. Therefore it is no more "wrong" for DHK to wish for his wife to wear a head covering than it is for my husband to wish for me not to wear one.
How long should her hair be? Or maybe, it's only if she is completely bald, then she should wear a veil? Couldn't she still have shortish hair, as long as it is styled in a way that obviously marks her as female, and NOT male? It says a woman's long hair is her glory, but it doesn't say anything about length.
The Greek word 'kamao' means to wear tresses of hair; signifying the hair should be lengthy enough to be considered 'tresses.'
At what length is hair considered to be 'tresses'? The Bible is not specific.