Trend Toward Head Coverings for Women, 1 Cor 11.5

:laugh:
Would tearing my Japanese Yokoama BayStars baseball cap be sufficient? (They've turned into losers anyway.) :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

 

Deleted - can't get my text to post.

 

If no one else is going to give the other side of this issues, I guess I will:

1. The scholars that were quoted confirmed that the "covering" which a woman is to have while praying and prophesying was a veil of some sort ("they covered their hair"). They're right. It's the only understanding you can get from 1 Cor 11 if you use good hermeneutics.

2. Paul said that the woman ought to have "power" (i.e. a symbol of the man's authority) on her head. Is that a cultural, or moral, precept?

3. How do church ladies today symbolize submission to their husbands?

4. Are church ladies today submissive to their husbands?

5. If the "covering" that God's word says a woman ought to wear when praying or prophesying is not (a) a veil, or (2) a hat, or (3) long hair; then just what is it?

6. What other culture-based passages ought we to be disregarding?

7. Long hair is a glory to the woman. Who should receive glory during worship?

8. You don't find anything offensive about some guy sitting in church and staring at some girl's "long blond hair"?

9. John of Japan, can you give me a list of minor passages that God has provedentially preserved so I can avoid all of them? I mean besides Song of Solomon, which I have been told is pornographic (even though most of the great scholars have understand it as an allegory of Christ's Love for the Elect).

10. Jim1999, you said "culture has changed". My question is, has it changed for the better?

 

10. Jim1999, you said "culture has changed". My question is, has it changed for the better?
-----------------------------------------------

IN some respects it is better and other not. That is irrelevant. It has changed. I don't wear a robe, sandals and other apparel common to New Testament times. If we don't consider culture, it is an important part of hermeneutics.

As Duvall and Hays write: "We are separated from the biblical audience by culture and customs, language, situation, and a vast expanse of time." Grasping God's Word, p 19.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Fair enough. But I think our culture is worse. In fact, I wonder if modern America is not surpassing all other depths of depravity ever know to man. Who ever heard of children slaughtering children at school?

The thing about chalking this passage up to culture is this - Paul recommends an action (they should wear the covering), and then he says why it should be done (to show submission and to cover the woman's glory). He makes no mention of robes, sandels, and such. And "because of the angels" seems to speak to a timeless principle.

And if we accept the cultural argument, how can we argue against female leadership? That's what they say - that it is a cultural, not a timeless, prohibition.

And I would add that a good understanding of bible-times culture should help explain, not explain away, the meaning of scripture.

 

But rsr, Paul says "nature itself" teaches you this. Seems like another reference to a timeless principle to me.

 

Yep, that would quench! Similarly, it is comforting to see our young ladies dressing modestly, but if it were a requirement for attendance, it would defeat their witness.

 

I have been around ministry to see discussion along these lines go full circle and back again. Anymore, I just wink, smile andw ait for the next merry-go-round.

Cheers,

Jim:BangHead:

 

Having personal experience with this I can say what they're getting online is bullying from head covered women how they are not spiritual, they are disobedient and can not please God with their heads uncovered.
Which is works based grace.

 

It is an important principle of hermeneutics that you don't build a doctrine from something only mentioned in one verse. Otherwise you get doctrines like the Mormon baptism for the dead. As soon as you give me another verse that talks about women's long hair and hats, you and I can build a doctrine on it.

The OP was on the outward symbols of submission. The inward attitude of humble submission is far more important than whether a woman has long hair or a hat. You can force the outward symbols, but you cannot force the inward attitude. Many women with long hair or who wear hats have a rebellious attitude--and I've known some of them!

 

You can absolutely never build a doctrine on one verse alone, it has to have other scripture to support it that teach the something.

 

But it is entirely true! In cultures all throughout history and all over the world, men naturally gravitate to having short hair and women naturally gravitate to having longer hair. It is something ingrained in the heart by God!

Biblical example: It was considered unusual enough for a man to have long hair in the OT that when it happened it was worth a mention, such as when Absalom got his tresses caught in a tree.

Historical example: Every bust or picture of the ancient Romans or Greeks that we have (Caesar, athletes, etc.) show men with short hair and women with longer hair.

Modern example: Japanese men wear their hair short and women wear their hair longer. In historical times, the Japanese men would shave the top of their heads and then have a weird little pony tail (look for a picture of a samurai warrior to see this), but the women almost had long, beautiful hair--except for Buddhist nuns, who shaved it all off (still do), which really looks ugly!

 

You mentioned a doctrine using one verse, I gave you one.

 

I wouldn't call it a desire to appear more spiritual. That may be with some people, but that's true of almost anything, not necessarily the majority.

I wear a headcovering when I pray alone. In private. There's nobody to appear more spiritual toward, so I know it can't be that! I don't even think my kids ever realized I use because I pray like that when they're asleep when I know I won't be interrupted. It falls from a personal conviction for me. I feel weird now without it when I'm approaching God for intense prayer. I have doubts about the meaning of that verse. I figure if I don't know for sure, better be safe and do it anyhow. And I like it now anyhow.

It doesn't really make sense that it means hair. Does that mean a woman bald from chemo is sinning if she prays, but a woman with hair isn't? That just sounds dumb. I tend to think that it was for the women in that place and time though. A custom thing. But maybe not.

 

Of course it is not universal. Neither is heterosexuality. People often do things against nature. (Not that I am comparing long hair on men to homosexuality in gravity.) The exception proves the rule.

Hey, I never said it was ungodly, and I never said God commanded to prohibit it. Please pay more attention to my wording. I say exactly what the Bible does, that it is a shame. (Does your Bible say something else?) "Shame" and "sin" are not the same thing.

As for circular reasoning, what is circular about taking the Bible at it's word, interpreting it literally, and then trying to figure out the statement? You are the one who wrote earlier, "I have long wondered why Paul said "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him ..." because that does not seem to be true." Personally, I take the Bible as true first, and THEN try to figure it out.

You missed my point entirely. My point was that his long hair was so unusual in that culture that the Bible specifically pointed it out. (What, you don't think growing your hair for a whole year will get it long??)

Once again, this was such a rare thing in that culture that the Bible specifically points it out. It says to me that the norm was short hair on men. This was my answer to you saying the Bible seemed to be wrong, not me saying long hair on men is a sin--it isn't, it's a shame.

Hey, if you are convinced that Paul missed the boat, I'm sure I can't prove to you he was right no matter what I write. :smilewinkgrin: