Womens hair

Ummm, DHK where in the Bible are women commanded to cover their breasts?

Lots of commands to cover nakedness but no definition of nakedness. Why? Personally I believe it's because God knew that after mankind ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, we could figure it out for ourselves. Therefore it IS a cultural issue just as much as hair length is.

No one, btw, should construe this post as advocating that anyone go around barechested. I personally don't even allow my son in public without a shirt. Most of the mothers of his friends feel the same way. But, when I was growing up(as a Missionary Baptist), my brother ran around without a shirt all the time. It's a cultural issue.

 

This "clear-cut command of the Bible" of which you speak is not nearly so clear-cut and Paul's reasoning is clearly based on the culture of his day. Thus, if the culture under the command changed, what does that say of the command? I believe it says that the command is not that which is enculturated, but the bigger principle behind it. In this case the bigger principle is that those in active leadership in worship are to dress in such a way as to not be a hindrance to unity and the gospel. That is the point of this passage, not antiquated head coverings.

 

You tell me it is based on culture. You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all: opinion and nothing else. How can you back your opinion with Scripture? You cannot. Let's look at Scripture and see:

1 Corinthians 11:1-6 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
--BE followers of Paul, he says, even as he is of Christ. He has set us an example. Are you willing to follow it. This is not cullture. This is the Word of God. It is timeless. It does not change.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--The word ordinance is command. The first part of this chapter is taken up with the "ordinance" or command of "head-coverings" and the last half of this chapter is taken up with the "ordinance" or command of observing the Lord's Supper. Is one more important than the other? Not in Paul's mind. Logically if the wearing of a head-covering during a church service is tied into culture then so is observing the Lord's Supper. Why forget about the head-covering, and not the Lord's Supper? A little illogical and hypocritical.

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.
--This is the first principle that Paul puts forth as to why a woman ought to have her head covered. It is the principle of head-ship. The head of the man is Christ. And the head of the woman is the man. The sign of that headship is the head-covering that she wears. It is a shame unto her if she does not wear it.

4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
--If a man wears his hat or head-covering it dishonors the Lord. We all know that it is improper for a man to keep his hat on in church. It strikes me odd how in our culture we can still figure out that it is wrong for a man to wear a hat in church, but we can't agree to the principle that wearing a hat or head-covering is proper for a woman. Both principles are taught here. But we only adhere to one of them.

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.
--Paul shows how extreme, how shameful it is for a woman not to have her head covered with some sort of head-covering. It is just as shameful as if she were to shave her head. Later on he says that long hair is a glory to a woman. Here he says that if she doesn't cover her head with a head covering it is so shameful that she would be shaving off what glory she ever had in the first place.

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.
--Again Paul emphasizes the same thing as he did in verse five. "Let her be shaved." Either wear the hat or be shaved. Choose which one. Obviously the choice is clear.

Now please show me scripture where this is tied to culture. Since when did culture change the Word of God? Did culture also change the command to keep the Lord's Table? Just as Jesus, The Word of God is the same, yesterday, today and forever; it changes not. Who gave you the right to change it? Culture does not dictate the Word of God. If the culture is wrong; the culture must change and submit to the Word of God.

 

You are asking me to do something impossible: to show that Paul's reasoning is tied to culture, using only Scripture. That's just silly. But there is a way to do just that. Contine reading the chapter and you get to vv13-15, in which Paul makes an argument on the basis of "nature." He says that women by nature have long hair and men by nature have short hair. If "by nature" he means naturally, then he is mistaken. If a man lets his hair grow naturally, it it will grow long. However, this word physis doesn't only connote "that which is natural" but also includes "that which is customary." In other words, Paul is explicitly arguing from culture here, women should have long hair because its conventional and men should have short hair because its conventional too.

Thus, this section is enculturated. That's not my opinion, its right there in the text. Plus, since we know things about Roman Corinth and its culture, where Paul seems to be arguing right in line with it, its not stretch of imagination to assume that his argument is tied to the culture.

Lastly, you ask "since when did culture change the Word of God"? And my answer is that it doesn't. God speaks his Word to people inside cultures in ways that they will understand. Also, if by Word of God you mean the actual words themselves in the Bible are the Word of God, then I see your point. But I don't believe that way; I believe that the words of the Bible communicate the Word of God to us. And in this passage the "Word of God" which you insist cannot change is that we should get out of the way when we have an active role in worship so that unity will be promoted and the gospel will be proclaimed without hindrance.

I've never said that culture is all determining; I've mearly indicated that Paul was speaking his message utilizing the culture of Corinth. This is plain to anyone who wants to see it. If you decide beforehand not to see it, then you won't.

 

1 Corinthians 11:6 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)

Hair (whether long or not) is not a veil or head-covering.
Let the Scriptures speak.

 

Only if you are KJVO can you make a statement like that. I just quoted from the ASV which uses the word "veil" There are two different Greek words for covering.

The word "kataluptw" is used for a head-covering.

The word "peribolaion" is used in verse 15, when describing the hair as a covering.

Even the context gives one an obvious interpretation:

1 Corinthians 11:6 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.

So your interpretation would be?
"If a woman have "no hair" (bald) let her be shaved; but if it is a shame to a woman to be shaved or or shaven then let her wear a wig"

That is a wild interpretation.
Where do you get it from?

 

Good use of Scripture.

 

women's hair

When I was a kid growing up, I was led to believe if a woman cut her hair, wore make-up, and/or wore jeans, she was going to the land of the lost, so to speak. But as I have gotten older, I have learned that not everything I thought was true, was true. Take for instance, women's hair. I love long hair on a woman, the prettiest thing I have ever seen, but I am not the one who has to wash it, dry it, brush it, etc. It says in I Cor chapter 11, it is a glory UNTO HER.

Now, if a woman has had chemotherapy or radiation treatments for cancer, her hair, in most cases, she loses it. But, God knows this,too. If a woman is "gay" and she cuts her hair to make herself look "manly", then that would be definitely(sp?) wrong. It's not so much how long a woman's hair is, but how she wears it.

 

I trust this isn't a veiled personal attack against me telling me that I don't have the Spirit to understand the Scriptures, just because you disagree with me.

For a full exposition of this passage go back here and read:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1178654&postcount=33

I have challenged you to give a viable solution how 1Cor.11:6 could be properly translated without the word "covering" meaning anything other than "head-covering," but you have no answer but only a meaningless assertion that the hair is the covering--even when the verse doesn't make sense.

1 Corinthians 11:6 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.

Veil or head-covering means just that.
It does not mean "hair," no matter how you twist the Scriptures.

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.
--This is an assertion. Long hair is a glory for a woman. It is put in contrast to verse 14, where short hair is a shame to a man. Verse 15 is nine verses away from verse six, in a completely different context. The two words in the KJV translated "covering" are not even the same Greek words. They are not talking about the same thing. Context is key.

 

Actually, one of the reasons I grew my hair out originally was to cut down on maintenance. I hated having to get it cut every three-four weeks, and styling it every morning. I actually spend less time and money on it now than I ever had before, and I can style it in many more ways if I want to. And I like that it shields my face in public when I want it to. Some women may want to consider these things when deciding to grow it out or cut it again.

love,

Sopranette

 

DHK, David Hurley, I'd like to see both of your opinions on how the use of the word "if" affects our interpretation of the the passage.

See, the way I see it, when I'm giving a command to one of my children I don't use the word IF. I say, go to the barber and cut your hair. Now were I to bargain with them, I would say "IF you go to the barber and get your hair cut I will..." but this leave them with the choice of whether or not they want a hair cut.

Now 1 Corinthians 11:6; 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. Their is a choice to be in both phrases, if she's not veiled then she can cut her hair off; if its a shame to cut her hair then she should wear a veil. Neither passage make the choice, that is left to the reader.

Now why would Paul leave that choice to us? Or what else is there to signify that Paul really wasn't giving us a choice?

 

The word "if" is put there as a condition of obedience.
It is the same as saying:
If you receive Christ as your Savior you shall be saved.
If you reject Him you shall receive condemnation.

If you don't wear a head-covering you will receive the greatest possible shame that there is for a woman to receive. It is punishment, a mark of disobedience. The "ordinance" (command) that he gave in the previous verse makes it clear that this is not an option.

 

But DHK, the verse doesn't say "if you don't wear a hair covering you shall be shamed" the verse says "if its a shame then wear the hair covering".

Your examples are command/reward statements. (If you will ____ then I will _______)

The passage however is a problem/solution statement. (If _____ is a problem then _______ is the solution)

I'm not sure I understand how you come by what I see as a twisting of the plain meaning of the passage. This may be plainer: Why do you apply the command/reward type statement to this passage? Is there something in the unlying Greek that is not apparant once translated to English?

 

The meaning is not twisted.
First there is more than one reason given why a woman should where a head-covering. It isn't just confined to one verse. They are listed here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=33

There are six reasons given. You need to take into consideration all of them, not just one verse. When you take into consideration the whole passage one has an airtight argument.

Secondly it is not speaking of short hair as you seemed to imply. It speaking of "shaven or shorn" which means "bald." It means just the same thing as when a man "shaves" in the morning. If she doesn't wear a hat she should be shaved bald. That is the disgrace it is. There is no short hair involved. What woman desires to go around with a bald head?

Your statement is:
"The passage however is a problem/solution statement. (If _____ is a problem then _______ is the solution)"

If wearing a head covering is a problem is a covering then baldness is the solution. Is that really the solution for most women? Are you advocating that women should shave their heads bald instead of simply giving into that simple command of wearing a head covering. What extremes one goes to, to avoid a command.

1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
--An ordinance is a command. The commands mentioned in this chapter are the wearing of a head covering and the Lord's Table.

If you want to argue language, then consider verse 10:

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

One may argue: But it doesn't use an absolute like: must, need to, etc. It simply says "ought." That, or course, is a foolish argument, for the Bible doesn't always speak in absolutes when giving a command and is not bound to. For example Jesus said in Luke 18:1

Luke 18:1 And he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint;

Was he giving us a choice in the matter? Was he saying you don't have to pray if you don't want to? No. He was saying that you need to pray; you must pray. It is your duty to pray, and then follows a parable about the necessity of prayer. Men ought always to pray, and women ought always to wear a head-covering (in the church services).
It is so simple isn't it?

 

A few questions

One of you said:

What makes you say that? When I see old pictures of women with their long hair pinned up I think submissive. I was just wondering what made you think otherwise?

And then another said something about long hair on women today really doesn't mean the same thing.

I have a question to ask the men. Today, if you see a woman, modestly dressed with long hair (below the shoulders) what is your first impression? Submissive? Christian?

One more observation that I would appreciate your comments on is in the same chapter of I Cor. that has been quoted several times.

I Corinthians 11 :3-5
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 head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
5 But every woman that paryeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

So, are these verses saying that if my hair is short I am dishonoring my husband? And also, if a man prays, having long hair, is he dishonoring his head, Christ?

 

Saying a woman needs to pray that God helps her with her burden of hair is like saying a woman should pray her way through labor without using painkillers because God wants her to have pain in childbirth. (I'm not trying to start a conversation on meds during labor, that's for another thread.) Sorry, but I don't buy it.

Who says long hair gives a woman confidence with God? I had long hair for years until November, when we battled some headlice and had to get short haircuts out of necessity. My confidence in God is not even remotely connected with my hair. In fact, I have less headaches now, in more ways than one.