1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Womens hair

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Danny Hurley, Feb 5, 2008.

  1. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    You know DHK, I know you are smarter and better than this.

    The original verse says "if its a shame then wear the hair covering" (Cindi's paraphrase)

    Simple logic will tell us while the original statement is true the converse and inverse of that statement may not be true and don't have to be true. So your bit about hair covering being the problem and baldness being the solution is simply a red herring designed to throw the unsuspecting off their gaurd.

    How about instead telling my why you don't believe the original statement infers a choice to be made within one's own culture by the use of the word IF. I was clear in my questioning how about you being clear in your answer.

    Now, I did go read your post (cool how you managed to link to the single post. How'd you do that or is it moderator magic?)

    First off I do not accept that because Paul used the phrase "and keep the ordinances I delivered to you" that he meant hair coverings were an ordinance.

    Where do the ordinances of the Baptist church orignate from? Paul, Peter, John the Baptist? Of course not. Our ordinances originate from Christ himself. Do we have one instance recorded for us where Christ ever commanded a woman to wear a veil? All the many times Christ was around women, spoke to women, ministered to women, do we ever find and instance where he ever referred to/commanded/described a womans hair covering? When you find one, you can let me know. Paul says to follow him even as he followed Christ, but Christ didn't seem to have an opinion on hair!

    Two, I've never been convinced that this passage is directly dealing with hair and veils as much as it is dealing with authority. Before Paul ever talks about hair he talks about headship and who's head is whos. I personally believe there was quite a bit of hen pecked men and overbearing women in Corinth. Men who threw over their authority and let the women "do all the talking" and women who ignored their husbands requests to keep quiet. All these passages about how a woman dishonors her head, well who was her head? Paul defined for us in vs 3-4. A woman's head is her husband. She isn't shaming herself, she is shaming him.

    Now how could that be? because in that culture head covering were seen as a sign of a married/unavailable woman. Or rather a woman who subjected herself to the authority of another (her husband).

    Lastly, I also do not agree that the subject of being contentious (action) can be "we have no custom of being contentious". This doesn't make sense in English. "we have no custom" is the object of "being contentious" as it is written. The subject that pertains to the action of "being" can't be the object of it. We have to look elsewhere for our subject, that elsewhere being the previous sentence(s). This is one place where I believe the syntax of the languages simply doesn't match up well.

    Instead I believe that Paul was saying simply that there was no uniform custom of veil wearing/hair length, in the Churches, that was any different than was common custom among the inhabitants of the cities where they resided.
     
    #81 menageriekeeper, Feb 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 15, 2008
  2. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    This pairing of a woman's hair with Samson's Nazirite vow is a terrible hermeneutic.
     
  3. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree, rbell.
     
  4. Virginia ORB

    Virginia ORB Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    If a church has a rule against sisters cutting their hair and a sister cuts it anyway, is the church justified in excluding her from membership?
     
  5. Baptist Believer

    Baptist Believer Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    10,720
    Likes Received:
    781
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, but the sister needs to get out of that church anyway.
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Indeed! A church like that is already down the road to extrabibilcal cultism by controlling people's lives to that extent.
     
  7. ccrobinson

    ccrobinson Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,459
    Likes Received:
    1
    Neither. I don't believe that the length of a woman's hair marks her as submissive, dominant, Christian or Satanist.
     
  8. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    [FONT=&quot]Which 'original' verse are you going by?
    I assume that by "hair covering," you mean "head-covering," meaning something that covers the hair.

    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.
    --This is a command; not a choice. In the first part of the verse the if is followed by a punishment. "If she is not...then let her be put to death, stoned, put in jail, "shorn or shaven," disgraced, etc. There is no choice here. If you are not obedient pay the consequences. The verse is very clear. At that time a woman caught in adultery was shaven. It was a mark of disgrace. Paul uses this example as how shameful this is.

    The headcovering is a sign of authority--that the man has authority over the woman.

    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.
    --This is the principle being demonstrated in verses 4-6--a priniciple of headship. Now think about it. Paul goes on later to describe the difference between the sexes. Long hair is a glory to a woman. Nature teaches one that it is a shame for a man to have long hair; but rather that he should have short hair. In fact many middle-aged man are "naturally" bald, in contrast to women who are not so. If the woman does not wear a head-covering then let her head be shaven, becoming more like the man whom she is rebelling against. For the head-covering is a sign of headship, a sign of her submission to the man. Of course in our western civilization, we rebel against that God-given principle, let feminism, unisex, women's rights, prevail. And the result shows in rebelling against commands in Scriptures such as these. As one who travels as a missionary to different nations, I find it odd how other nations in other parts of the world cover their heads routinely in their services. But our so-called western civilized societies think that it is "cultural" to rebel against the commands of God.
    There are some churches already that ordain homosexual ministers. Is this also cultural? Something we should accept because it is a part of our cultural? Is this the thinking here? Does culture dictate the Bible or the Bible dictate culture? Which one must change?
    [/FONT]
    Show me the red herring. I show you the common sense of the verse.

    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)
    --How do you prove your point out of this verse? It calls for a head-covering no matter which way you look at it. There is no way that you can insert "hair" as a covering in here. If you do the statement does not make sense.
    Point out the original statement. What do you refer to as "original"? Original in what language, translation, etc. Which verse?
    I have already been clear in my answer.
    Then what do you accept?
    A mother comes home and says to her daughter: "Thank you for doing what I said, and cleaning up the kitchen."
    Paul says: I praise you for keeping the ordinances (commands) of wearing head coverings.
    And you say that he didn't say that. Or that it wasn't one of them. The only two that he refers to are the wearing of head coverings and the Lord's Supper. Why do you believe in one, and toss out the other? He devotes fifteen verses to it and you don't believe them. Incredible!
    Do they?
    Where do the qualifications of a pastor originate from?
    Or the qualifications of a deacon?
    The instructions concerning spiritual gifts--where do they come from?
    Taking believers to court--where do those "ordinances" come from?
    All such "ordinances" come from the epistles. an ordinance is simply an Old English word for a command. Our city has many ordinances. Many of them are simply called by-laws. But they are commands, nevertheless, and need to be obeyed. How much more if it is a command of God written in the inspired Word of God!
    We have fifteen verses explaining why women should women should wear a veil. Do we have one verse by Christ giving the qualifications of a deacon? Should we do away with that also? It seems to me that you think the NT should stop at the Gospel of John, and from Acts onward should be thrown in the garbage. It is not needed according to you.
    When you find Christ and his followers being in a church formed on or after the Day of Pentecost, in the Church Age, then I will oblige you.
    But he did. He knows the exact number of each one on your head, even if you happen to lose some of them.
    You are right in that the greater principle is authority. The authority of the woman is the man. That is the principle. The sign of that authority is her head-covering. It is a symbol. Christianity has many symbols.
    One of the signs of our obedience to Christ as a new Christian is our baptism. Yet that baptism is full of symbolism. It symbolizes one's death to his old life of sin, and his resurrection to a new life in Christ.
    The second "ordinance" or command in 1Cor.11 that Paul commands is the proper observance of the Lord's Supper. Two elements are used: the bread and the wine. They are highly symbolic. One represents the body of the Lord and the other represents the blood of the Lord. Christianity is full of symbolism.
    Here the head-covering is representative of a woman's submission to her husband's authority. It is a sign of that authority. When you don't wear you are making the statement to others that you are the one "that wears the pants in the family."
     
  9. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Things haven't changed much have they?
    Paul explains carefully that the head of the woman is the man (husband), and if unmarried it was the father.
    "And they twain shall be one flesh."
    Even if I accept this as true, the greatest damage a woman can bring to her marriage is to "shame" or embarass her husband in public.
    So why would you want to bring shame on either yourself or your husband by rebelling against this command. It is timeless, not attached to any culture. To say that it is attached to the culture of the first century is to say that the Lord's Supper is attached to the first century, which Paul goes right into in the next half of the chapter. Why avoid one and pay attention to the other. That is just plain hypocrisy--a religion born out of convenience. "When it becomes convenient to obey the Lord I will do so, otherwise Lord don't bother me."
    Then study the Greek. That is exactly what it means.
    That is your opinion. Actually it makes perfect sense in English as well. You just don't want to accept it.

    "If any man wants to wear wigs we have no such custom."
    1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any one think to be contentious, *we* have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God. (Darby)
    --It is the same statement. The custom referred to is that of being contentious. Darby emphasizes the "we" by putting it in quotations, making sure that it refers to the "churches (assemblies) of God." None of the churches of God have the custom of being contentious. So if you are going to contend (as you are doing), don't come here.

    This is in harmony with what Paul wrote elsewhere:
    Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
    That is the exact opposite of what he said. There was a uniform custom of wearing head-coverings in all the churches of God. If you are going to be contentious about it, then leave and take your contentious spirit with you. We don't have the custom have being contentious here.
    This is the strongest possible argument that Paul could give.
     
  10. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you think about your answer all weekend long DHK? I'd kinda hoped we were done. Oh well. Where to start.

    How about, if this were an ordinance why is there no other passage in the Old or New Testaments that give the command to cover ones womanly head?

    To clear any confusion we are speaking of the verse I Corinthians 11:6, period. No more, no less.

    Not veiled, be shorn, is not what I consider to be a punishment! Being made to wear something on my head OR to have to contend with long hair would be! (and I've done long hair so I'm not making this comment in jest)

    Magic words "at that time" and "was". There isn't much chance of being mistaken for an adultress by having ones hair short/shaved now is there? Like I said it's a cultural.

    Yes and no. :D The acceptance of homosexuality is indeed cultural/secular. The acceptance of homosexuality within the Church is a whole different matter as the commands against homosexual behavior are repeated in both the Old and New Testaments. I ask you can you show me one place in the Old Testament or the Gospels where a head covering is commanded? Can you show me another place in the Epistles where a head covering is commanded? Scripture must interpret scripture.

    Red herring is bolded. I don't think your posts constitute scripture. :p

    Paul says thank you for keeping the ordinances "." (period)

    1Co 11:2 Now I prayse you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keepe the ordinances, as I deliuered them to you. (KJV 1611)

    See the period. A period finishes a thought. Just because Paul goes on to discuss headship (not hair) doesn't mean that headship is an ordinance. Paul doesn't get to head coverings until verse 4. But now we are off topic because I said we were only discussing verse 6. However, you brought up verse 2 so I have answered it, twice as I recall. Once in my post, #82 and again here.

    These are not ordinances. They are structural commands that only apply to the certain ones chosen to lead. Ordinances apply to all believers. Again, hair coverings are not ordinances. Even in the ordinances there is leeway in how often, when, whether and how they are observed. Just look at the threads on baptism and the Lord's supper. :eek:

    I think that this topic deserves a thread of it's very own and will start one soon over in the translation forum. I thought I asked you what in the underlying Greek led you to believe how you do. But wait for the other thread to answer please. This one is getting to complicated to follow easily.

    more to follow, eventually. I have to go be submissive to my husbands wish for supper. :D
     
  11. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Okay, supper's on and daughter is picked up from work. (I almost forgot her. :eek: ) Let's see how far I can get before karate.

    I think before I respond to this, I'd better fully understand what thought you are trying to convey. Why would you deem it important that Christ have been in a church service after Pentecost? You think His opinions are somehow overcome/overridden by that of the surely Spirit-filled Paul. (this may also be a topic for another thread)

    Wait! Did he count them through my hair covering? Better yet, did he tell me how long they should all be? LOL!

    Yep, it does. Are we to live our lives by man made symbols? Wouldn't that be akin to idolitry? Isn't this very topic one of the reasons Protestants broke with Catholism?

    Where again was it said that grown but unmarried daughters were to be submissive to their fathers? Or that the fathers were to continue to be responsible for their grown daughters? (yet another topic for a different thread)

    Who is shaming me? Can shame be proferred in the absence of condemnation from those in authority over me? And who is in authority over me? Oh, yeah, that would my husband who would faint and fall backward if I told him I was going to wear a hat as a sign that I'm in submission to him and then he would: hide the hat, shut down my computer and tell me I was spending to much time at church. I'm trying to get him into church not further away from it!

    Okay, I think that does it with the exception of the question on how to interpret the subject/verb agreement in the Greek as it relates to the English. I'll get to starting that thread later and maybe tomorrow as I am quickly running out of time.
     
    #91 menageriekeeper, Feb 18, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 18, 2008
  12. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The word "ordinance" means "command" as I have pointed out to you many times. Words have more than one meaning, and the meanings are quite similar in nature. This meaning, though it means command is not to be confused with the "two ordinances" that are given to the local church that we keep in perpetuity: the Lord's Supper and baptism. Obviously the word is used simply uses in its ordinary sense as a command just as it is a "command" to pray. It is a synonym for command.

    Why is it not in any other part of the Bible? It doesn't have to. The first epistle to the Corinthians deals with many issues that you won't find in any other part of the Bible, simply because it was a carnal church rebelling against what other churches had no problem doing without question. Take some examples. Here is what you don't find in the other epistles:
    1. Taking one another to court (suing).
    2. Offering meat to idols.
    3. Particular problems of marriage (more specific than those that Jesus dealt with)
    4. the abuse of Spiritual gifts.
    5. the abuse of the Lord's Table.
    6. the denial of the resurrection.
    7. Immorality (specifically incest) and how to deal with it in the local church.

    Those are some of the things that Paul deals with that are not found in any other place in the Bible. Head-coverings is just one more issue.
    The key verse of the epistle is found in 1Cor.7:1

    1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
    --It is the first part of the verse. The Corinthians had written them a letter about specific problems that had arisen in the church, and he was answering these questions.
    Notice in chapter three that he tells them that they are carnal and have need of milk. They cannot yet have the meat of the Word of God, which they should be able to have by now. They are still drinking milk. They haven't matured.
    I suppose those who don't obey the simple command not to wear a head-covering haven't matured either.
    And that is immature. It is like a carnal Christian saying, "Having to spend as much as half an hour in prayer and Bible study is punishment for me." They know it is the right thing to do, but since they are carnal they consider it as punishment. Their heart is not right.
    We don't force people to dress modestly either. It must come from the heart. Hopefully they will see that it is the right thing to do. Hopefully they will see that it is the right thing to wear a head covering as well. It must come from the heart. No one forces anyone to do anything including praying and reading their Bible. But then holiness is up to you.
    1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
    --This is a timeless statement without any past tense. There is no "at that time." In fact there is no "at that time" in the entire passage. Your whole point is fabricated.
    I have given you six reasons in this passage alone why a head covering is commanded. Why don't you listen to Scripture. You reject it because you don't want to believe it. Verse 10 is a command. As I showed you previously it is written in the same format that Christ commanded us to pray in Luke 18:1
    "For this cause men ought always to pray." Is there any doubt left by Christ that praying is an option?
    1 Corinthians 11:1-16 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. 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. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? 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.
    --Which one of the above verses do you not consider as Scripture?
    Paul doesn't speak in a vacuum. Verse two is obviously connected to the rest of the chapter. The ordinances that he discusses in the chapter are head-coverings and the Lord's Supper. It is an introduction to the chapter. He doesn't write it for the good of his health. It has meaning.
    If a head-covering is not an ordinance why did Paul refer to it as one. Context is everything. You cannot divorce verse two from the rest of the passage, and say: "There I have proved you wrong." It doesn't work. Try studying hermeneutics. Everything that I mentioned to you were commands and subjects mentioned in other parts of the epistles that are not mentioned in other parts of the Bible. That is what you were complaining about. Not everything in the Bible has to be taught first by Jesus, then in the Book of Acts, then by each and every Apostolic writer. We would end up with a very thin Bible if that were the case. If it is mentioned once it is important.
    The only leeway given in this ordinance (as Paul calls it) is that you don't have to wear it all the time. He was writing to the church. He was referring to the services of the church. Be thankful that unlike some of the sects of Islam he is not requiring women to wear it everywhere you go outside of your own house.
    1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

    The custom being referred to is that of being contentious. If you are going to be contentious go somewhere else. We have no such custom. The practice of this church and all the churches of God is to follow the command of wearing head-covering as I have just explained to you.

    Hear is what the Geneva Bible says:
     
  13. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    So you are inferring that women who do not wear a hat or a veil while praying are carnal?

    Wow!

    I am with mk here. It is only one verse in which the command is given, not to any church but the one at Corinth. It cannot be meant for every church else Paul would have included it in other epistles.
     
  14. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    Culture in that area of the world had women worshipping in the temple of a goddess with their heads shaved and uncovered. Paul demanded the women of the Church of Corinth to walk a separate life as those worldly women. This entailed the wearing of veils during prayer... so they were not identified among the worldly worshippers of the goddess Diana.

    Here in the states, many women who are in gangs, both motorcycle and street, wear hats. One could easily say women who wear hats are identifying with street gangs or motorcycle gangs.

    There is no Scriptural support for the worldwide wearing of hats or veils by women in Church.
     
  15. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    Do you believe Christians should take one another to court, or should the matter be settled out of court?
    What do you believe on spiritual gifts, the speaking of tongues and prophesying? Where did you get your theology from?
     
  16. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    You haven't read this thread have you?
    The first sixteen verses of 1Cor.11? You just snipped them out of your Bible did you?
     
  17. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    The words 'ordinance,' 'command,' and 'commandment' are not to be found in 1 Corinthians 11 at all. why do you say the wearing of a veil or hat is a command for the worldwide Church?
     
  18. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    They aren't?

    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.
     
  19. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    For a full summary of why a woman should wear a head-covering go to my post here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost...4&postcount=33
     
  20. standingfirminChrist

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    3
    I am against Christians taking one another to court. It is a terrible witness to take one to court to sue them.

    Speaking in tongues? If it is the unknown tongue, it should be addressed to God and God alone. The interpretation of the unknown tongue should be addressed to God as the tongue was addressed to God.

    Other tongues are nothing more than known dialect.

    If tongues are spoken in a congregation, there must be an interpreter present or the one with the tongue is to keep silent. This is to prevent confusion.

    Prophesying means preaching. I see nothing wrong with preaching. Foretelling of events that are not to be found in Scripture is not prophesying... it is divination; which is sin.
     
Loading...