Headcover

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
What if she is driving along and decides to pray, does she pull over and get out her covering? I don't think so! God gave her a covering and if her hair is 'long' she is ready to pray at all times.

MEE

Keep things in perspective please. Paul was correcting problems in the local church. He goes on to correct abuses of the Lord's Table, which is not taken "as you drive along in your car," but only amongst the members of the church. This is a specific command to the local church. It does not apply to the public or other places. It applies to the church. He was correcting problems in the church.
DHK [/QB]

****

I am keeping things in perspective. Paul was talking about people praying...not necessarily in church. Prayer isn't limited to being in a church building or as a group. A man or woman can pray anytime.

Yes, I agree the Lord's supper is to be taken as a group at a church gathering..prayer is another story. Prayer is always in order at anytime!

MEE

 

[DHK]

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.

Ordinances are given to the local church. Ordinances in this context simply means "laws." Immediately after he speaks about a "law" about headcovering.

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.
The ordinance of headship is discussed. Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of woman.
This is instruction is given to the local church, who wrote to Paul about these questions:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--He is answering the questions that they wrote to him--questions that concerned matters in the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--If he is not talking about churches, why did he even mention them??
DHK

 

[Marcia]

Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Does this mean it is sinful for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair?

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering.

Does this mean it is sinful for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair? </font>[/QUOTE]Generally speaking, yes.

 

[Charles Meadows]

 

[DHK]

What other meaning would you attach to: "Does nature itself teach you that it is a shame for a man to have long hair?"

 

[Marcia]

So I'm in sin because my hair is short? (It's not short like a man's and not extremly short, but it's short to medium length).

I can see how it's sinful for a man to look like a woman and a woman to dress and/or try to act manlike, but how am I dishonoring God with short to medium hair??

 

[mioque]

MEE&DHK
"Cute picture mioque!"
''
My church led the headcovering standard degrade in the early 70's and ultimately reaffirmed it in the early 90's, making it once again mandatory. As a compromise to that part of the church that thought it was much ado about nothing, we included the Outrageous Headcovering Rule. That is, if you want to wear a silly hat in church as a headcovering than that is okay. Still I usually wear something slightly more sedate than the cap in the picture. The OHR in the end has helped in making headcover wearing universally accepted in my church especially among the younger women who had the most reservations early on.

Marcia&DHK
"Does this mean it is sinful for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair?"
''
The standard on what is long hair has changed considerably since 1st century Galilea. Short hair among man in those days was shoulderlength.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by mioque:
MEE&DHK

"Does this mean it is sinful for men to have long hair and for women to have short hair?"
''
The standard on what is long hair has changed considerably since 1st century Galilea. Short hair among man in those days was shoulderlength.

The idea that Jesus had long hair (shoulder length) came from the rennaisance period, when people like Michaelangelo painted pictures of Christ. But if he had never seen Christ where did he get his information from. It was pure imagination. He paints a blue-eyed fair skinned Jesus Christ. Of course Jesus was a Hebrew, olive skinned with brown eyes. He himself would not go against Scripture and would not have long hair. He was not a Nazarite, that would require him to have long hair. There are many busts of that era that we have of various individuals such as Nero, and others. They all have short hair. We can deduce from these historical pictures that Christ would have short hair like the people around him did. Nero's hair was cut above his ears.

The Bible says that a woman's hair (long hair) is a glory unto her. What can one say? That she has lost her glory? It doesn't say that she should never cut it. I would rather think IMO, that a woman's hair should be shoulder length, and not a man's. After all, What DOES nature teach us? It doesn't say, what does culture teach us? It says, What does nature teach us?
DHK

 

[Marcia]

Well, nature teaches me that shorter hair dries faster and is generally easier to take care of. I just can't believe I'm in sin because my hair in not down to my shoulders.

 

[MEE]

Originally posted by DHK:
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.

Ordinances are given to the local church. Ordinances in this context simply means "laws." Immediately after he speaks about a "law" about headcovering.

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.
The ordinance of headship is discussed. Christ is the head of the man. The man is the head of woman.
This is instruction is given to the local church, who wrote to Paul about these questions:

1 Corinthians 7:1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
--He is answering the questions that they wrote to him--questions that concerned matters in the local church at Corinth.

1 Corinthians 11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
--If he is not talking about churches, why did he even mention them??
DHK

MEE thinks that you are grasping at straws!

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Well, nature teaches me that shorter hair dries faster and is generally easier to take care of. I just can't believe I'm in sin because my hair in not down to my shoulders.

My wife got her hair cut short. She got 10 and a half inches cut off. Now her hair only comes down to her waist.
My 11 year old daughter did have hair that came down to her waist, but it was hard for her to take care of. Out of necessity she had to get it cut. Our only comfort is that it will grow back, and it is. She still wants long hair.
Hair grows. It doesn't have to stay short.
The question is: What do you understand the Bible to be saying, and what are you willing to do about it? There are many in this world that are not willing to lift a finger to obey the Great Commission either, even though it is so clearly stated.
DHK

 

[Marcia]

As far as the Great Commission goes, I am a missionary and in full-time ministry.

I do not see these verses as saying it is sin to not have long hair. I see them as saying that a woman with shorn hair (shorter hair or shaved head) was dishonoring because

Having a woman's head shorn or shaved meant different things in different cultures; in Jewish law, it was the mark of adultery (Numbers 5:11-31); in the Greek world, it could be the mark of a prostitute or lesbian.

Having shorter hair today is not a sign of being an adulteress, prostitute or lesbian (the latter maybe if it's really short or 'man-style' buzz cut or something).

The principles are the same but the outworking in culture is different.

Part of Biblical hermeneutics is to take the cultural and historial context in consideration. The principle here is the male headship but I am not dishonoring that by having shorter hair as shorter hair is not recognized the same way now as it was then. Hair length, like clothing, varies over time and from culture to culture.

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Marcia:
As far as the Great Commission goes, I am a missionary and in full-time ministry.

I do not see these verses as saying it is sin to not have long hair. I see them as saying that a woman with shorn hair (shorter hair or shaved head) was dishonoring because

There is the simple statement that says that a woman's long hair is her glory. It is said in apposition to the rebuke given to man not to have long hair. For a good commentary on these two verses (14,15) look up Albert Barnes.
The "shorn hair" was mentioned in relation to wearing an actual headcovering as a veil. There Paul said if she wears not a headcovering let her be shorn. The policy is very strict. That did not refer to the length of hair, but the headcovering itself.

Having shorter hair today is not a sign of being an adulteress, prostitute or lesbian (the latter maybe if it's really short or 'man-style' buzz cut or something).

I agree with you in general. It is a simple matter of obedience to God's Word. However if you go back in history far enough, long hair on men began with the hippie movement. It was around that same time that women began to stop wearing hats to church, and also began to cut their hair shorter. There was the "unisex" movement, where men's hair was getting longer and women's hair was getting longer. Women began to wear pants and jeans more, dressing more like men. The lines of demarcation between the sexes were being obscured more and more. Both feminism and the equal rights movement have torpedoed this movement right along. Now we have had women playing in the NHL, women wrestlers, boxers, weightlifters, body-builders, etc. Feminism is not being feminine any more.

The principles are the same but the outworking in culture is different.

The principle of headship is the same.
The sign of wearing a headcovering is the same.
The fact that a man should have short hair is the same.
The fact that long hair is a glory unto a woman is the same.

Part of Biblical hermeneutics is to take the cultural and historial context in consideration. The principle here is the male headship but I am not dishonoring that by having shorter hair as shorter hair is not recognized the same way now as it was then. Hair length, like clothing, varies over time and from culture to culture.

Short hair is short hair. Short hair is not bald hair. That is dealt with in verse 3. "Let her be shorn." Short hair is not long hair. Is this public school education where there are no absolutes and everything is relative. "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes." (Public school teacher). Surely we can do better than that kind of hermeneutic.
DHK

 

[Karen]

Originally posted by DHK:

..........He himself would not go against Scripture and would not have long hair. He was not a Nazarite, that would require him to have long hair. There are many busts of that era that we have of various individuals such as Nero, and others. They all have short hair. We can deduce from these historical pictures that Christ would have short hair like the people around him did. Nero's hair was cut above his ears.
........

Somehow, though, I question the idea that we can tell what Jewish men's hair was like by looking at busts of Roman pagans.

Karen

 

[DHK]

Originally posted by Karen:
Somehow, though, I question the idea that we can tell what Jewish men's hair was like by looking at busts of Roman pagans.

Karen

Being a Roman does not equate being a pagan. Paul, himself a Roman citizen, wrote an epistle "to all the saints in Rome." What existing artifacts tell us is that men of that day and era had short hair.
DHK

 

[mioque]

DHK
"The idea that Jesus had long hair (shoulder length) came from the rennaisance period, when people like Michaelangelo painted pictures of Christ."
''
You are of by about 9 centuries. The stereotypical (shoulderlength hair) picture of Jezus emerges in the 5th century and becomes the norm in the 6th. In fact Michelangelo paints a Jezus without the beard in the Sistine Chapel deliberately going back for the 4th century (member of the Roman nobility) style of depicting Jezus in his judgementday scene.
He did this because early Christian art focusses on the triumphant Christ.
This early art simply copied a cliché depiction of a Roman nobleman and did not try for realism.
The early longer hair depictions of Jezus are an attempt at such realism, getting at least the standard local haircut right. The pale skin and light blond hair are medieval affectations added to this 'realistic' image. The same goes for the bright blue eyes, but these are actually common enough among the local population of the Middle East to be possible.

"There are many busts of that era that we have of various individuals such as Nero, and others. They all have short hair."
''
The haircuts of Roman Patricians like Nero, tell us about as much of the coiffures of simple Galileans, as the hairdo of the punkmovement does about the way you comb your hair.

 

[mioque]

DHK
"What existing artifacts tell us is that men of that day and era had short hair."
''
What existing artefacts tell us that the males of the Roman upperclass and military had short hair. This practice almost certainly extended to most Roman citizens especially in the hearlands of the empire, but tells us nothing about the Jews living in the province of Palestina Antiqua, one of the periferal parts of the empire. What little we have found in the way of pictures has longer hair for the males.
Depictions of the Greeks of the time also normally have longer hair than the Romans.

"My wife got her hair cut short."
''
Interesting detail, even in it's cut condition, your wives hair is still longer than that on any fresco or statue of a women of the era that I know of.
I'm an arthistorian, I've seen a great many Roman statues.

 

[MEE]

1Cor.11
14) Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

If the Bible says that it is shame for a *man* to have long hair, then Jesus 'didn't' have it! There wasn't anything shameful about Him.

Nuff said!

MEE

 

[John3v36]

Originally posted by DHK:
Marcia,
It is hardly an obscure verse or passage when half the chapter is given to the subject (or at least the first 16 verses). That is quite a bit of Scripture. Paul spends more on this subject than on Christians taking other Christians to court (Romans 6). Is that obscure and cultural as well?

The wearing of a headcovering was not cultural. The only cultural part of it was the type of headcovering you wore. You might wear a different style of "hat" today, rather than a veil or a scarf. There is a command to wear a headcovering nevertheless, and one ought to be careful to heed God's commands. Look at the context and the reasons why God commands women to wear a headcovering:

1. Because of the headship of man (vs 3-6)
2. Because of God's order in creation (vs 8.9)
3. Because of the angels (v 10)
4. Because of a sense of propriety (v 13)
5. Because of the natural order of things (the distinction between male & female and the woman's natural covering; vs 14,15)
6. Because of the practice of all the churches (v 16)

This was no small matter that Paul was addressing. He gave specific and definite reasons why a woman should wear a headcovering, and a specific penalty if one should not. It is not that a women was ever shaved bald (the consequence of not wearing a headcovering), but that she would be so ashamed not to wear a headcovering that that would never happen to her. In some mid-eastern countries it is like that to this day. You would never see a Christian woman at a church service without her headcovering.
DHK

Very real said!