Womens hair

Here is your quote from your previous post

Why would you be against taking a Christian brother to court? It is only mentioned in one epistle--1Cor.6. It must be a cultural thing. It is not mentioned anywhere else in the Bible. If it were for every church Paul would have included it in other episltes as well.

The same holds true for Paul's teaching on the spiritual gifts.
You are being hypocritical SFIC.
If God says something once, that makes it important.

 

Did search for ordinance... not ordinances.

Ok.. ordinances set forth for the Church at Corinth. Certainly not given to Ephesus, Thessalonica, Phillipi, etc.. There is no record of such given in any other epistle as I have stated previously.

They were to present themselves different from the heathens of that geographical location.

 

Not being hypocritical at all, DHK.

Taking one to court is a sign of unforgiveness. We are commanded constantly through God's Word to forgive.

If one cannot show forgiveness, if one has so much hatred for a Christian that one has to take him or her to court, how dwelleth the love of God in that one?

you are comparing apples with oranges when comparing suing to hair.

 

The ordinances which I have delivered unto you.
In that chapter there were two:
1. the wearing of head-coverings.
2. the observance of the Lord's Supper.

Why do you believe one is important and the other is not?
There is a readiness to disbelieve the Bible, and even reject it in our so-called "civilized" society, whereas in other parts of the world Christians have no problem obeying this command.

 

I'm enjoying this discussion as a mere onlooker. :thumbs:

 

You are still being hypocritical in your stance.
1Cor.6:1-8 is the only place where Paul deals with this matter. He devotes only 8 verses to the matter.
Whereas in 1Cor.11:1-16, Paul devotes 16 verses, twice as much space as to the importance of a woman wearing a head-covering. And yet you ignore and even dismiss this matter as not important. This is truly unbelievable.

 

I disagree that the head covering is an ordinance for this reason.

Verse 3 goes into something entirely different from the ordinances given.

Verse 3 starts with the word 'But'. That begins a whole new thought having nothing to do with the ordinances given.

They have kept the ordinances (v. 2). But... Paul brings another command beside the ordinances given... that of head covering. They were to cover their heads to be identified as being not of the pagan worshippers of that area.

Head Covering was not, is not an ordinance of the Church.

 

First of all DHK; I think I am proud of you for your stand as long as you keep the covering "long hair". It is hard to go against nature and the way this country is, wearing long hair on a woman, has just about gone out of style. I was wondering how you all went from hair to a "veil", when scriptures says hair for a covering??

Old Regular Baptist still hold to the long hair on our sisters and short hair for the brothers. We will not baptize a man with hair down on his shoulders. We tell him to get it cut and come back, if that turns out to be too hard for him, we feel he was not ready yet anyway. I know this sounds harsh to most on here, but it is our practice anyway. So, we have been through all the hair arguments and its not a popular stand to make, but we are not out for popularity.


1Cr 11:15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering.

BBob,

 

And yet the Bible calls it one. I would rather believe the Bible and not your anemic rationalization not to believe the Bible. Anyone can post their beliefs as to "why I don't believe the Bible." Did you go to the link I posted for you yet? It expounds from this passage six reasons why God wants women to wear a head-covering. There is not one command. There are six.

 

Thanks Bob.
In verse 15 the word for covering is different than in verses five and six. There are two different Greek words differentiating between two different types of covering. In verse 15 it simply says that the covering (her hair) is a glory to her, in contrast to verse 14 where it is a shame for a man to have long hair. The two verses show a contrast. That is the contrast, and that is the context.

In verses 3-6 the context is headship wear an actual veil or head-covering is used as a symbol of authority. It is a symbol that the husband has authority over the woman, or the woman is submissive to the husband. The actual word is translated veil in the ASV/

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.

 

No, the Bible does not call it an ordinance... DHK does.

If it were so important that a Christian woman wear a head covering beside her natural hair, why is there no description of what that supposed head covering was?

No description as to its size (large or small), its shape (circular, square, rectangular, triangular), its color, ... nothing at all.

If it was so important, surely God would have instructed Paul to instruct the Church as to what type of material and how much was to be used.

Paul did not instruct in such matters because the woman's hair itself is her covering.

 

1 Corth; 11

4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
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.
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.

We always took this to mean, if a woman cut her hair, it would be equal to shaving her head, so let her hair be long. We hold it to be "long hair" only.

The brother not to pray with his head covered, we take not to have long hair or pray with a hat on.

We have an Association Order, that covers all our churches on this matter, but its always "hair". Long for sisters, short for brothers, and we do not mean that a brother has to have his hair stuby short, just keep it off his ears and collar.


BBob,

 

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.
--These are not DHK's words; they are God's words!

1 Corinthians 6:1-3 Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

If taking one another to court were so important God would have told us what kind of court it would be.
He would have told us the different offices involved. He would have told us the shape of the courtrooms, what they are supposed to be made of, what colors the walls are to be, whether there are to be pews or chairs, whether the judge is to be a judge or a magistrate, and if he should use a gavel or not. But he hasn't. Therefore this is not a Biblical passage or a Biblical command. God does not want us to obey this command. It was only for first century Christians.

This is your reasoning SFIC.

 

1. If you guys would permit me, I like to add the following for consideration in this debate:

1 Cor 11:2:

KJV: "Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you" (emphasis mine).

NASB: "Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you" (emphasis mine).

2. The KJV has "the ordinances" while the NASB has "the traditions."

3. But what is the underlying Greek? The Greek text reads τὰς παραδόσεις, "the traditions." So the NASB reflects the Greek text more accurately than the KJV here.

4. The real question is: What is the principle behind the traditions in these verses? What was Paul getting at?

 

It doesn't make sense that way.
"If a woman 'cut her hair short' then let her shave her hair off altogether, but if it is a shame for a woman to shave all her hair off then let her 'wear her 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.
--As you can see the ASV makes far more sense.

1 Corinthians 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head.
--The Scripture is plain here. It is obvious that it is speaking of a hat, and not the length of hair.

I can agree with that teaching Bob, but it comes from verses 14 and 15, not from verses 1 to 6.

 

In verse 2, Paul honors the Church by recognizing that they are doing two things.

1. Remembering him in all things
2. Keeping the ordinances.

They are keeping the ordinances.

Verse 3 goes into something different than the ordinances that were given by Paul. He begins the verse by saying 'But...". Clearly the issue with the hair is not an ordinance at all.

 

It makes sense to us, in the way of being cut, is just as bad as being shaven, so do not cut it, but have long hair. We know that shaven is a sign of dishonor and believe that scripture is telling us to cut it you are dishonoring your head, the same as if you shave it.

It is how it has been interpted from 17 century at least, for us.

Yes, but we always teach "context" and we are talking of "hair" here. Another verse says, doth not nature itself teach you it is a shame for a brother to have long hair.



BBob,

 

TC, we've already agreed (I think) that the main purpose of this passage is to describe headship/authority. It is the extent and necessity of the outward symbol of that headship upon a woman that is being debated. Of course there is a little bit being thrown in about long hair on a man. Also being debated is whether this applies to todays church or whether this was a 1st century sort of problem.

Personally, I think DHK and I are at a standstill. We're at the point to which we need to agree to disagree. Further discussion isn't going to push either of us off our pedastal.

I still plan on some more discussion over the interpretation of "the custom of being contentious". I thought I'd get to posting that today but have had my hands full with reality. (nothing like reality to ruin a good debate!) So maybe tomorrow.

 

My personal conclusion about v. 16 is this: Paul is only concern about how the principle of role distinctions is maintained.

 

Head Covering re-visited

Wow, thank you for all of your research and insight. I have spent several hours reading the previous posts. I was recently hit with this "doctrine" in a small church I was visiting. It seems that this small church puts that the women should wear a head covering as important as baptism or other doctrines such as sin, the church, etc.

I was curious if any of the previous posters were actual Pastors of churches and put their beliefs into practice? I don't want to re-cover what was already covered, but I am really concerned with my last queston. I have visited many churches and this small church that I am presently visiting is the only church where I have seen this verse practiced.

Thank you.