:laugh:TaterTot said:
Would tearing my Japanese Yokoama BayStars baseball cap be sufficient? (They've turned into losers anyway.) :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trend Toward Head Coverings for Women, 1 Cor 11.5
- Thread starter Marcia
- Start date
Would tearing my Japanese Yokoama BayStars baseball cap be sufficient? (They've turned into losers anyway.) :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:
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?
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
-----------------------------------------------
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
Jim1999 said:
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.
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.
Troy Martin has written a fascinating explanation of the passage in which he theorizes that Paul was basing his instruction on Greek understanding of physiology, not upon a timeless theological principle.
Troy Martin has written a fascinating explanation of the passage in which he theorizes that Paul was basing his instruction on Greek understanding of physiology, not upon a timeless theological principle.
Marcia said:
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.
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.J.D. said:
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.John of Japan said: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.
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!rsr said:
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!
Brother Bob
New Member
You mentioned a doctrine using one verse, I gave you one.
Last edited by a moderator:
Marcia
Active Member
John of Japan said:
This group claimed it was not a denomination but they really were - they developed somehow from the Plymouth Brethren, which I knew nothing about, of course, as a new believer. I didn't know much about churches at the time and had never heard of this thing about covering your head (except for Catholic churches). Since they seemed to be so into the word, and I couldn't refute it, I went along with it. My sister and I left not because of this, but because of the legalism and feeling the HS was being squelched there (though not on purpose).
Marcia
Active Member
Brother Bob said:
Brother Bob - and everyone - please don't hijack the thread with this issue! If you want to discuss this, please start another thread - thanks! :smilewinkgrin:
I'd like to keep it on this issue and what is the verse really saying. I put it in the Theology section because I was hoping for some more theological takes on it.
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.
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.
John of Japan said:
In general, that seems to be the case, but it is not universal.
I think you're using circular reasoning. Having decided that long hair for men is ungodly, exegetes argue that the prohibition is a command of God.
The Bible does not say his tresses were caught in a tree; that has long been taught, but that is following the Mishnah, not the OT. The Mishnah also says that Absalom earned his specific death not because of the length of his hair but because he gloried in it.
The only reference to Absalom's hair in 2 Samuel does not condemn the length of hair at all. Rather, it emphasizes that Absalom is a strapping fellow who had such luxuriant hair that when he cut it - as he did every year - it weighed 6 pounds. There is no hint that his hair, in and of itself, was a sin.
I also would note that the Nazirite vow in the OT prescribed that the taker of the vow not cut his hair.
Well, maybe. That was the cultural norm of the late Republic and Empire, but not necessarily of earlier times. If you examine statues of Greek gods you will see that the length of hair varies over time and changes in fashion. The Byzantine traditional also show variations; you can find icons of Christ both with short and long hair.
In addition, you have left out the Minoans, Akkadians (both Assyrians and Babylonians), Persians (take a look at a bas relief of Cyrus), the Gauls, Britons and a host of other ancient peoples, as well as Native American peoples. Long hair among men was common in Europe during the 17th and 18th centuries (look at any portrait of the Cavaliers.)
I'm not sure the Japanese (or Chinese) custom of shaving the pate and letting the other locks grow long necessarily proves your point.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.rsr said:
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: