More about Hair.

HeadCoveredLady--

It shows order, thats all! The wife is to give glory to husband who in turn gives glory to the Lord Jesus Christ. If my wife is rebelling against me---in a sense, not only is she rebelling against me but at the same time she is rebelling against the Lord Jesus Christ. Her rebelling against me is making her a double rebel! Therefore, I am to see to it she doesn't rebel against me.

Brother David

 

Do you have documentation to prove this? I know that I have never read the word feminist in the scripture, so this didn't come from there. If you are so certain your point is scriptural, why even use this argument at all?

This basically says even if you don't do it for God, do it to oppose feminism. I, personally, don't want anyone obeying any command for any other reason than to please God.

As far as I am concerned, it should be as the apostle Paul wrote, we should all be convinced in our own mind. We are no longer under the law what matters is the heart in which we wear our hair.

~Lorelei

 

I am sitting here in stunned silence staring at the monitor.

Joshua

 

What about the part where the Husband is supposed honor the wife? If your wife "rebels" aginast you, and she feels she has a biblical reason to do so (legalism is a biblical reason), then she doth rebel against you righteously and justly.

 

Blackbird,
I agree with what you have said, but the only difference would be that in addition to me being under my husband there must also be a visible symbol on my head to represent what is going on in the heart.

Lorelei,
Here are a few links :http://www2.oneonta.edu/~angellkg/1920.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0873980654/inktomi-bkasin-20/102-9934316-6333737


And as far as feminism goes it began in the garden when Eve followed the serpent. The order became: Satan, Eve, Adam then God. It was supposed to be God, Adam, then Eve.


But, again I go back to the Bible. It says that long hair is a glory for women and a shame for men. I take this literally and I know that satan hates that.

 

Found one more: http://library.thinkquest.org/26829/text-only_3-styles_e.htm
Can't stay here all day though trying to prove that the feminists were the first ones to cut off their hair.

 

I agree with what you have said, but the only difference would be that in addition to me being under my husband there must also be a visible symbol on my head to represent what is going on in the heart.

A woman biblically is not "under" the Husband. Biblically, the husband is to be responsible for the wife spiritually, but nothing else. If the wife wants to wear a headcovering, because she is biblically compelled to, then the husband has no right to tell her otherwise. Likewise, if the wife chooses not to, and the usband feels she should, it's not for him to decide.

And as far as feminism goes it began in the garden when Eve followed the serpent. The order became: Satan, Eve, Adam then God. It was supposed to be God, Adam, then Eve.

It was SUPPOSED a triangle, with God on top, and Adam and eve below God, at the same level. The two are to become one flesh. If that's not equality, I don't know what is.

But, again I go back to the Bible. It says that long hair is a glory for women and a shame for men. I take this literally and I know that satan hates that. I don't think it says that:

For if the woman does not have long hair let her shear it.
It says IF a woman does not have long hair, the she's ALLOWED (not required) to cut/shear it.

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.
It says IF a woman does not have a covering, then she is ALLOWED to cut her hair. It also says IF cutting her hair is shameful, then SHE IS ALLOWED to cover her head.

These verses are IF/THEN statements, and they are statements of allowances, not requirements. It's saying that a woman may wear a headcovering if she chooses to, but that it is not required.

 

Maybe someone will get it.....


The Bible says, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. 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. 7 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

These scriptures aren’t speaking of literal hair…. I’m sure that some of you are ready to quit reading at this point, but I will speak on…. So….. Much like Jesus used parables to explain an important illustration, so Paul uses hair here, in these verses, for much the same purpose… They’re used to illustrate a very important point….

God is the head of the man (In other words, He’s the man’s covering), so if a man prays, and he doesn’t have his head covered, which is to say that he isn’t under God’s authority, he dishonors his head…… The same as with a man…. Man is the head of the woman (he is the woman’s covering)… So, if the woman prays and she isn’t under subjection (or her head isn’t covered) unto her husband, as she would be unto God, she dishonors her head…

The Woman is the glory of the man (as the angels in heaven are under authority unto God, so should the woman be under the authority of the man, or under subjection unto he own husband….

So you see, hair is an outward appearance of a much deeper meaning… If a woman chooses to show the world that she is under subjection (literally, by letting her hair grow to a certain, long length), I don’t see anything wrong with this, although, you will get in a debate of how long is long….

These verses are hard to swallow for those of us with no backbone, those of us that don’t lead and guide, and love their wives, and in return are respected and revered…. Also, for those women that would lead about their husband and have spiritual authority over them… Not remembering that the man was first made, and then the woman, and the man wasn't deceived, but the woman, being the weaker vessel, was deceived…. …………Pause, not my words…. It’s a shame unto them, just as God is saying…..

Personally, and without showing any disrespect unto God, what would it be worth to you, if your God couldn’t hear your prayers because you have long hair, or short hair… Is your God that weak? Not my God! Does God explain just how many inches you should let your hair grow? Folks, we’re not under the law, but under grace….. These verses, as some of the other scriptures, shouldn’t be taken literally….

Pray unto God for understanding these scriptures…. Don’t just look at the outside of a much deeper explanation inside…

Amen!

 

I like what you said Jailminister that prayers are not answered because one is following this Scripture. But, obedience is still required.


Verse 10 prooves that there is no way that this is some type of allegory. Because the angels cannot see into the heart to tell whether or not the woman is submitted. But, they can see the sign covering.

 

Personally, I don't grow my hair out long anymore because I am afraid the weight would make the rest fall out...

 

I don't necessarily think they are tied together. My wannabe man has longer hair (in the back--the front is cut short) because he is growing it for Locks for Love.

He is no effeminate man, let me tell you.

 

I think hair is an important issue to looking like a Christian. My Pastor teaches that the mans hair needs to be off the collar and above the ears and not a worldly style. Also the womans hair needs to be a covering and he said he read in a commentary that if a woman can't pull it to her face on both sides then it is to short. It should cover your face when you pull it toward there. I don't fall out over hair but I do think it should be godly...If that makes sence

 

Brother Joshua--why are you sittin' in front of your monitor stunned??? Are you sure you aren't looking in the mirror??????????????

I am to be to my wife what the Lord Jesus Christ is to the church! My wife is to be to me what the church is to the Lord Jesus Christ! I can't get any plainer than that, Brother Joshua! Hillary's "Village" isn't runnin' my home--the Lord Jesus Christ is---I don't imitate the village--I imiatate Him--in my home, in my marriage, as a dad and as a preacher! Sometimes I think you post extreme liberal stuff just so you can see if you can get the extreme Conservative's blood pressure up!!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

Major...you are a hoot!


Graceforever...I agree!


Sherrie

 

Welcome to the BB. I do appreciate your pastors opinion. But, I would ask anyone, where in the Bible does it give specific instruction to not touch the collar and be above the ears? This is not the first time I have heard about this particular hair style for men. Why do so many people who are concerned with the hair issue believe in the collar and ear theory?

 

I think the reasoning there is "Ring Around The Collar".

Hair oils get on the collar and then the women have to hand scrub those shirts.

Whisk! Whisk is the best for that I have found.

Women can have long hair, because they don't wear collars.

Well Gib I hope I explained that good enough for you.

Sherrie

 

Dawn dish soap is also great, Sherrie

 

Sherrie, It all makes sense now.