Men and hats II (The sequal)

Yes, I agree. 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.

Her head should be covered with the hair God gave her, and if not, she should have other covering [Greek: covering of another kind].

 

Simple. If her head is not covered, I.E., her hair is cut very short, in a man-like style, it is as if she is shorn or shaven (a penalty for adultery in those days)

The Greek word here is "katakalupto" notice the prefix "kata" attached to the word for "cover" or "veil." Note it could read "down covered." I believe that indicates the length of the hair. And if her hair covering does not hang down, she will appear as if her hair is just growing out from having been shorn or shaved. The whole point here is the testimony of her husband, and her public submission to him as the "authority" over her.

 

Again, I'm coming to realize that there are baptist churches that live worlds apart from each other.

Joshua

 

Perhaps someone could find some ancient pictures of what hair styles were worn by men and women in Paul's day, and then use computer animation to come up with a "Baptist Hair Styles" manual that we could post somewhere on the internet.

Obviously we don't want to engage the thought that the principle being taught in this passage might have something to do with a situation that was unique to the Corinthian church, related to the culture of the day and, since it is only dealt with in Corinthians, might not be a universal instruction that would have applied to Christians in nearby Athens, much less all Christians everywhere forever.

Nor would we want to look at the fact that men in hellenistic culture (Greek) often cut or shaved their heads, but men in the Jewish culture let their hair grow out. Or that in Paul's day, wearing a head covering in public was something that virtually everyone did, and that removal of the covering by a man who is praying also demonstrated, in that culture, his submission to God.

Of course, if we get too literal here, I can always interject the reminder that women can also prophesy in a Christian worship service with her head uncovered. Unless we remove the cultural applications, we have a real problem with a contradiction from the same apostle Paul over in Timothy where he says that women can't speak in church at all. So which is it? A] they can't speak at all, or B] they can speak if their head is covered?

I am sure there is a Baptist out there who can twist enough contexts and proclaim enough prayer time and experience to enlighten us all on this issue.

[ August 25, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]

 

Of course it was cultural.

Joshua
(who thinks some of his most gifted colleagues are women)

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
Robert,

Good, I love it when things are simple. So you are okay with women being pastors as well, for surely that was cultural, yes?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it was cultural and I don't have a problem with it.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pure and simple genius:
Execllent. How about wives submitting to their husbands?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a problem to understand these verses (in which the husband must also meet a responsibility to expect his wife to submit and which is often left out by those who want to beat this into a hard and fast doctrine) if we look at the context of the time in which they were written.

1. Wives were the property of their husbands, ranking just below the house and grounds.

2. Marriages were arranged by transfer of goods or money from husband to father. The partnership of marriage was between the son-in-law and the father-in-law. In order for the partnership to function, the wife had no choice and had to submit to choices made by her father and her husband.

The context of the marriage relationship in light of our culture today is one of mutual submission, which is the principle being taught in the complete passage in Ephesians 5:22-33. In light of our individual equality and accountability before God (Galatians 3:26-29). A marriage is no longer a partnership between a son-in-law and father-in-law, but between a husband and wife.

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]

[ August 29, 2001: Message edited by: RobertLynn ]

 

Thanks RobertLynn. I've gotten tired of saying that.

Joshua

 

Yup, those are the three:

- other races
- women
- gay and lesbian people

Some do-gooder always comes along and says, "Hey, our understanding of what the Bible says on these groups should be interpreted in it's cultural context."

Then someone else says, "Well, I think the Bible is clear on this, and you obviously don't believe the Bible. I wish it weren't that way, but this is the natural, created order of things. We can't go changing that."

Same arguments, different issues.

Joshua

 

Yes I am saying that homosexuality was just a cultural taboo for that time.

Sex outside of marriage is more complicated. The Old Testament concept of marriage is so radically different from our contemporary one that I'm not sure we can make a proper analogy. I do believe that anything that can produce children belongs in a covenantal relationship. I also think that we have a general prohibition against licentious behavior from Christ.

Joshua

 

Since divorce in that era wasn't about relationships but rather economics, I would question whether Jesus' rebuke is about ending the covenantal relationship or about leaving one's ex-wife in such dire straits. I think we should take the admonishment seriously, but I'm not sure which is the focus.

Regarding homosexuality, most civil governments don't recognize the validity of a marriage; but that does not preclude gay/lesbian couples from making a lifetime covenant.

Joshua