The Hair Issue

[Anemone]

I'm guessing y'all have read the chapter in 1st Corinthians concerning hair and coverings.

I'm a woman who likes to wear shorter hair. I greatly dislike long hair.

Is it sinful for women to wear their hair short?

[ctay]

I like to wear mine short too. Its so thick, I get it short and layered so it won't be so hot. its hard to hold a curl too.

[DaSeminarian]

In reading this section in 1 Corinthians, I noticed (at least in the ESV) that Paul says that he commends these things for women and gives his reasons. Now commending is not commanding, but rather exhorting or encouraging and he then gives his reasons. I don't have anything from Luther to study on this so we might have to wait for DaRev or Filo to give their views on this.

[LilLamb219]

When people say that women should wear their hair long, I always ask them to "define long"? ;) It's more a matter of maintaining femininity.

[DaRev]

In that particular passage, Paul is using a culturally relevant situation as an object lesson for us all. The point to the passage is not about hair length or head coverings per se, it's about recognizing authority and the order in the Church. The point is that women should not desire to ursurp the roles and responsibilities of men. Men have their God-given responsibilities as do women, and each should not desire or take on the role of the other.

[KimLCMS]

That's good because my hair is pretty short:pink:

[PreachersWife2004]

My hair tends to thin out as it grows out. Shoulder length is about as long as I like to go. But I usually have my hair cut in a bob type cut, with the back up shorter than the front. I also color it, but not anything overly wild anymore...I just prefer it shorter.

[Confess]

God is not about legalisms. This is not a salvation issue. A good point raised was that this was not a command that you should do it, rather it was an encouragment for women to do it. This means that he is basically advocating a society practice women wearing long hair. This doesn't mean that all women MUST wear their hair long since there are some women who cannot do this and others who find it impractical in their lives.

[DaSeminarian]

In that particular passage, Paul is using a culturally relevant situation as an object lesson for us all. The point to the passage is not about hair length or head coverings per se, it's about recognizing authority and the order in the Church. The point is that women should not desire to ursurp the roles and responsibilities of men. Men have their God-given responsibilities as do women, and each should not desire or take on the role of the other.


Thank you for your input on this. I didn't want to get too much into it or I would have messed it up at this point.

;)

[C.F.W. Walther]

My hair tends to thin out as it grows out. Shoulder length is about as long as I like to go. But I usually have my hair cut in a bob type cut, with the back up shorter than the front. I also color it, but not anything overly wild anymore...I just prefer it shorter.
Yea my hair is thin to. I wonder if bobbing and coloring would help me?

[LilLamb219]

Yea my hair is thin to. I wonder if bobbing and coloring would help me?

You could always try that spray on hair :P

[LilLamb219]

God is not about legalisms. This is not a salvation issue. A good point raised was that this was not a command that you should do it, rather it was an encouragment for women to do it. This means that he is basically advocating a society practice women wearing long hair. This doesn't mean that all women MUST wear their hair long since there are some women who cannot do this and others who find it impractical in their lives.

Good point about some people not being able to have long hair...a lot of people of African descent cannot grow long hair. If it were mandatory to have long hair, they'd be out of luck, wouldn't they?

[PreachersWife2004]

Yea my hair is thin to. I wonder if bobbing and coloring would help me?

Sweetheart, you actually have to have hair for it to work!! ;)

[Melethiel]

I have long hair. :D

[Aibrean]

That's good because my hair is pretty short:pink:

yes but it's pretty :)

[KimLCMS]

yes but it's pretty :)
Thank you! I needed that!

[KimLCMS]

Yea my hair is thin to. I wonder if bobbing and coloring would help me?
I was thinking you could let the beard grow long - sort of a Z Z Top look.

[Anemone]

Good answers everyone. Thanks. :)

[Jim47]

Yea my hair is thin to. I wonder if bobbing and coloring would help me?



Did you really mean it is short or ancient history? :P

[KEPLER]

In that particular passage, Paul is using a culturally relevant situation as an object lesson for us all. The point to the passage is not about hair length or head coverings per se, it's about recognizing authority and the order in the Church. The point is that women should not desire to ursurp the roles and responsibilities of men. Men have their God-given responsibilities as do women, and each should not desire or take on the role of the other.
Really, Rev? Paul is making an appeal to creation and to Godly authority in order to make his case, is he not? Is that not the same way he justifies the male-only Office of Ministry?

(and for the record, me wyf has short(er) hair, and I think she's a hottie!)

[Luther073082]

God is not about legalisms. This is not a salvation issue. A good point raised was that this was not a command that you should do it, rather it was an encouragment for women to do it. This means that he is basically advocating a society practice women wearing long hair. This doesn't mean that all women MUST wear their hair long since there are some women who cannot do this and others who find it impractical in their lives.

The only salvation issue is faith from my understanding.

[IronManMatt]

No Paul did not directly command men to have short hair and women to have long hair. However he did say that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, a shame for a woman to have a shaved head and a glory for a woman to have long hair since her long hair is her natural covering (not to be confused with the covering she is to wear when praying or prophesying). So Paul tells us that God wants men to have short hair and women to have long hair, and what God wants from us we should give him as best we can. If we refuse to do what God wants then we sin. Of course it is not a sin if a woman has short hair because her hair will not grow out because that is beyond her control. However if a woman wears a crew cut out of personal preface than that would go against what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11.
But we also must remember that Paul did not define how long, long is or how short, short is. Therefore there is no steadfast rule. I think we need to focus on the spirt of the law here which seems to be an outward and delberate distinction between men and women. Hair is a natural distinction directed by God that we can control and head coverings is a distinction commanded by God both need to be obeyed in all cultures and in all times. So when picking out your hair the focus should probably be on whether this style is distinctly feminie or masculine depending on your gender. But I think there are some obvious rules such as if a man's hair is longer than his wife's then either his is too long or hers is too short.

[DaSeminarian]

No Paul did not directly command men to have short hair and women to have long hair. However he did say that it is a shame for a man to have long hair, a shame for a woman to have a shaved head and a glory for a woman to have long hair since her long hair is her natural covering (not to be confused with the covering she is to wear when praying or prophesying). So Paul tells us that God wants men to have short hair and women to have long hair, and what God wants from us we should give him as best we can. If we refuse to do what God wants then we sin. Of course it is not a sin if a woman has short hair because her hair will not grow out because that is beyond her control. However if a woman wears a crew cut out of personal preface than that would go against what Paul taught in 1 Corinthians 11.
But we also must remember that Paul did not define how long, long is or how short, short is. Therefore there is no steadfast rule. I think we need to focus on the spirt of the law here which seems to be an outward and delberate distinction between men and women. Hair is a natural distinction directed by God that we can control and head coverings is a distinction commanded by God both need to be obeyed in all cultures and in all times. So when picking out your hair the focus should probably be on whether this style is distinctly feminie or masculine depending on your gender. But I think there are some obvious rules such as if a man's hair is longer than his wife's then either his is too long or hers is too short.

Go back and read DaRev's post. He is a Pastor and his answer is right. All you have here is a bunch of morality.

Get to the center of the message.

[IronManMatt]

In that particular passage, Paul is using a culturally relevant situation as an object lesson for us all. The point to the passage is not about hair length or head coverings per se, it's about recognizing authority and the order in the Church. The point is that women should not desire to ursurp the roles and responsibilities of men. Men have their God-given responsibilities as do women, and each should not desire or take on the role of the other.

1 Corinthians 11 is an instruction about how the church should worship. The whole chapter is as such. First Paul tells us that men need to uncover their heads while praying or prophesying and women need to do the opposite. Paul clearly says that is a shame for a man to pray or prophesy with a covered head and says that it is a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered.

1 Corinthains 11:
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.

Very cut and dry. Many people try to say that this only applied in the culture and time were this letter was written, but what do they base that it on. Paul says nothing about this being a cultural issue. In fact in his explanation of why we are to worship this way Paul refers back to creation, nature, and angels.
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

14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?


He says nothing of culture. Paul even finishes this passage by saying that there is to be no contention over this issue, and yet here we are.

16: But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

[DaRev]

The passage is about authority and submission in the Church. Who said anything about "culture"?

[porterross]

I won't shave my head. Don't ask me.

[DaRev]

Why would I ask such a thing? I like your hair.

[Anemone]

My hair is a little under chin length. Seems to be a typical style for a woman. I haven't been mistaken for a man since I started wearing it like this.

[porterross]

My hair is a little under chin length. Seems to be a typical style for a woman. I haven't been mistaken for a man since I started wearing it like this.
I would love to be able to wear shorter hair, too, but men seem to appreciate longer locks. ;)

[C.F.W. Walther]

I would love to be able to wear shorter hair, too, but men seem to appreciate longer locks. ;)Yea----don't know what it is about a long haired woman. I guess it's just those long silky tresses. We must have been programmed from little on. This is an interesting statement PR.

[porterross]

Yea----don't know what it is about a long haired woman. I guess it's just those long silky tresses. We must have been programmed from little on. This is an interesting statement PR.


Interesting? Why?

I appreciate that I have been blessed with healthy hair......and so does my hairdresser. :P

[DaRev]

I would love to be able to wear shorter hair, too, but men seem to appreciate longer locks. ;)


;)

[PreachersWife2004]

So, um, when are you two going to get it over with and just get married?

Not to sidetrack the thread or anything...:P

[DaRev]

I ain't touchin' that one. Not with a 10 foot pole!

[porterross]

So, um, when are you two going to get it over with and just get married?

Not to sidetrack the thread or anything...:P


We haven't perfected passive combat yet.

[RadMan]

Interesting? Why?

I appreciate that I have been blessed with healthy hair......and so does my hairdresser. :P
Just that most men seemed to be attracted to longer hair. :yum: You're a woman. You tell us why. I don't know why.

Oops----posted with the wrong alter ego. :sorry:

[DaRev]

We haven't perfected passive combat yet.

Workin' on it, though... :P

[DaSeminarian]

I ain't touchin' that one. Not with a 10 foot pole!


I'd multiply that figure by 10.;)

[IronManMatt]

The passage is about authority and submission in the Church. Who said anything about "culture"?

You did,


In that particular passage, Paul is using a culturally relevant situation as an object lesson for us all. The point to the passage is not about hair length or head coverings per se, it's about recognizing authority and the order in the Church.

I agree that the 1 Corinthians 11 talks about authority and order in the Church, but the passage does say that it’s a shame for men to be covered and a shame for women to be uncovered when praying or prophesying. The issue of headcoverings and hair length is not cultural, it is universal. I don’t see how one can get around that. Therefore women need to cover and have “long” hair and men need to uncover and have “short” hair.

[LilLamb219]

5 inches "long"? 5 inches "short"? ;)

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, guess I'm forever damned then.

I don't cover my head when I'm out and about, and most of the time I have a short page-boy cut.

Thank goodness that God accepts me the way I look and doesn't mandate that I have long hair to be his child. I couldn't imagine living under that kind of legalism.

[Jenna]

Now, I don't know that that was very fair. :( No one said that this was a salvation issue, let alone that anyone was going to be damned.

Actually, all of the women that I talk to who have long hair, and those who cover, all do so out of a LOVE for God- not out of a sense of legalism. None of us will go to heaven for singing praises to the Lord either, so why do we do it?

It all sounds like eating unclean meat to me. If a person wants to have long hair and wear a headcovering, then peachy keen for them. Likewise, if a person does not feel convicted that way, it certainly isn't a salvation issue- so peachy keen for them also.

[DaRev]

Now, I don't know that that was very fair. :( No one said that this was a salvation issue, let alone that anyone was going to be damned.

Actually, all of the women that I talk to who have long hair, and those who cover, all do so out of a LOVE for God- not out of a sense of legalism. None of us will go to heaven for singing praises to the Lord either, so why do we do it?

It all sounds like eating unclean meat to me. If a person wants to have long hair and wear a headcovering, then peachy keen for them. Likewise, if a person does not feel convicted that way, it certainly isn't a salvation issue- so peachy keen for them also.

He's trying to turn it into a legalistic argument, but it won't work because it's not a command about headcoverings. The example is headcoverings, which is used as an object lesson about authority. It's not a command about hair or hats, it's a command about order.

[Anemone]

Strange as it sounds, this hair thing has really bothered me.

Some churches out there that say you're in rebellion if you dont wear the hair long.

Then there's those other issues like, "if you're not baptized by immersion it's not a real baptism", or "you're not reading the real Bible if you dont read the KJV." or "women should only wear skirts."

It gets really confusing, you know?

[DaSeminarian]

Strange as it sounds, this hair thing has really bothered me.

Some churches out there that say you're in rebellion if you dont wear the hair long.

Then there's those other issues like, "if you're not baptized by immersion it's not a real baptism", or "you're not reading the real Bible if you dont read the KJV." or "women should only wear skirts."

It gets really confusing, you know?

My question to them would be "How do you know the baptism is not real?" Did God's voice come down from Heaven and tell you personally "Sorry, I can't take this one he was not properly immersed."

They don't even know the true meaning of the word "immersion" They submerge to go under, we immerse which means to get wet.

[IronManMatt]

He's trying to turn it into a legalistic argument

No, I’m not, I am trying to discuss the practical application 1 Corinthians 11. I believe that it is an obedience issue just like not getting divorceed, committing adultery, using fowl language, have bad thoughts against people etc… All of these things are sins but God forgives you when you do them if you ask him to. To turn it into a legalistic argument I would have to say that all men with long hair go to hell no matter what, and I didn’t. You are not legalistic when you obey God (that’s a good thing), you are legalistic when you think your obedience earns you salvation, and that’s what I’m saying.

but it won't work because it's not a command about headcoverings. The example is headcoverings, which is used as an object lesson about authority. It's not a command about hair or hats, it's a command about order.

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.

How can you refute what this says. If men cover and women don’t while praying or prophesying then they are dishonoring God. No God does not say, men thou shalt not cover, but he does say that He is dishonored if you do.

14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

So if a man has long hair it is a shame and it is a glory for a woman to have long hair.

Why do you say this is an object lesson, what leads you to believe that headcoverings and hair length is not an issue, because this passage says that it is. I don’t really understand where you are coming from. Please explain why this is an object lesson as I don’t see any indication of such in the passage.

Strange as it sounds, this hair thing has really bothered me.

Some churches out there that say you're in rebellion if you dont wear the hair long.

Then there's those other issues like, "if you're not baptized by immersion it's not a real baptism", or "you're not reading the real Bible if you dont read the KJV." or "women should only wear skirts."

It gets really confusing, you know?

The basic message of the Gospel of the message is simple, but life is complicated. Jesus had a lot to say about how we are to live, he gave us many rules to follow and we should do our best with his help to obey them. I think God gave us the Bible and commanded us to fellowship with each other so we could help each other with all of these seemingly confusing issues. But sometimes we just need to take a step back and remember what Jesus said that most important commandants are, to love God above all else and to love our neighbor as ourselves as all the other commandants are based on these. When we love God and each other we can work though these things, and thank God we are not required to get them perfect.

[DaSeminarian]

He's trying to turn it into a legalistic argument

No, I’m not, I am trying to discuss the practical application 1 Corinthians 11. I believe that it is an obedience issue just like not getting divorceed, committing adultery, using fowl language, have bad thoughts against people etc… All of these things are sins but God forgives you when you do them if you ask him to. To turn it into a legalistic argument I would have to say that all men with long hair go to hell no matter what, and I didn’t. You are not legalistic when you obey God (that’s a good thing), you are legalistic when you think your obedience earns you salvation, and that’s what I’m saying.

but it won't work because it's not a command about headcoverings. The example is headcoverings, which is used as an object lesson about authority. It's not a command about hair or hats, it's a command about order.

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.

How can you refute what this says. If men cover and women don’t while praying or prophesying then they are dishonoring God. No God does not say, men thou shalt not cover, but he does say that He is dishonored if you do.

14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

So if a man has long hair it is a shame and it is a glory for a woman to have long hair.

Why do you say this is an object lesson, what leads you to believe that headcoverings and hair length is not an issue, because this passage says that it is. I don’t really understand where you are coming from. Please explain why this is an object lesson as I don’t see any indication of such in the passage.

Strange as it sounds, this hair thing has really bothered me.

Some churches out there that say you're in rebellion if you dont wear the hair long.

Then there's those other issues like, "if you're not baptized by immersion it's not a real baptism", or "you're not reading the real Bible if you dont read the KJV." or "women should only wear skirts."

It gets really confusing, you know?

The basic message of the Gospel of the message is simple, but life is complicated. Jesus had a lot to say about how we are to live, he gave us many rules to follow and we should do our best with his help to obey them. I think God gave us the Bible and commanded us to fellowship with each other so we could help each other with all of these seemingly confusing issues. But sometimes we just need to take a step back and remember what Jesus said that most important commandants are, to love God above all else and to love our neighbor as ourselves as all the other commandants are based on these. When we love God and each other we can work though these things, and thank God we are not required to get them perfect.


No one would argue that Jesus was the perfect example of how we should live our lives. Did he do it completely alone? Absolutely not! He had the Holy Spirit to help him right up until he was given over to the authorities. Jesus knew that we can't live like he did. We can't be obedient. Should we try? Yes, but we will fail nevertheless everytime lest we have God's help in the person of the Holy Spirit to accomplish these things.

The first few verses you quoted in your post are what make this an object lesson. Christ is the head of the Church and the Church is to be submissive to him as a bride is submissive to her husband. Without Christ the church does not have proper covering, but Christ himself does not need a covering because he is God incarnate.

We need to realize in our lives that we are powerless to be obedient to Christ without the Holy Spirit to help us. We are not puppets though and we can rebel against the power of God, but without the power of God we can not come to him at all.

[IronManMatt]

The first few verses you quoted in your post are what make this an object lesson. Christ is the head of the Church and the Church is to be submissive to him as a bride is submissive to her husband. Without Christ the church does not have proper covering, but Christ himself does not need a covering because he is God incarnate.

I disagree that verse 3, “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.”
sets the rest of the passage up as an object lesson. It sets up the passage so we know what is means to dishounor our head. “4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head” If verse 3 was not in there then this passage would merely meant the we dishonor our physical head “a part of the body” as opposed to Christ and that would not be as strong an argument obey this teaching.

I have attached a link about headcoverings which explains why this is not a cultural issue but is in fact a very real and timeless issues that should be practiced today. If you have the time, check it out.

<http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings3.html>

[DaRev]

The lesson is this...

If a man prays or prophesies "having his head covered" he is in effect taking upon himself the position of the woman instead of his God given authority as the head of the household of God. If a woman "uncovers her head" she is in effect usurping the authority that is given the man. The lesson has to do with roles and responsibilities.

[RadMan]

This is only a synopsis.

Women in the Church
Scriptural Principles and Ecclesial Practice
Introduction and Part I
A Report of the
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
of the Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod
September 1985

1. In sharp contrast to the deprecation and suppression of women in ancient
cultures, and especially in Rabbinic Judaism, the Gospel record affirms their
value and dignity. Jesus clearly shows His regard for women, created equally
with men in the image and likeness of God.

2. In the order of creation, God has placed woman in a position subordinate to
man. This relationship of subordination, however, is radically different from
"secular" interpretations of it. The Scriptural concept of subordination is a matter
of function between two persons of equal worth and not a matter of
inferiority/superiority. The subordination of woman to man is not a dominative
subordination. The subordination of wife to husband is analogous to the
relationship which exists between Christ and the church.

3. The relationship between man and woman can also be defined as a headship
structure of God-Christ-man-woman, each member of the order superordinated
to the succeeding member. This is a theological and not merely a sociological
relationship.

4. The order of redemption, while affirming that men and women are one in
Christ and joint heirs of the grace of life, does not abolish the order established at
the time of creation. The distortion of the order of creation brought about by the
fall has been remedied by Christ's redemption, but it has not yet become fully
manifest in the redeemed. This will happen only in heaven. Therefore, far from
annulling the order of creation, the order of redemption sanctifies it. The two
orders are held together coordinately within God's purposes. The Lordship of
Christ spans both creation and redemption.

5. 1 Cor. 14:33b-35 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 speak of women's roles in the public
worship service. The main application of these passages in the contemporary
church is that women are not to exercise those functions in the local
congregation which would involve them in the exercise of authority inherent in the
authoritative public teaching office (i.e., the office of pastor).

6. Men who find themselves in positions of leadership and authority must assume
the attitude which Jesus Himself requires: "...rather let the greatest among you
become as the youngest, and the leader as the one who serves" (Luke 22:26).
Christian leadership and service must model Him.

7. Women have all of the God-given rights, privileges, and responsibilities of the
priesthood of all believers that men do. God's people are called priests not to
confer status but to commission all of them to declare His deeds of salvation. All
Christians have been given the responsibility to live their Christian faith in their
several callings, including the responsibility to profess and share the Christian
faith and to judge all doctrine.

8. The inspired writers of Scripture do not discuss the implications of the order of
creation for life in the civil estate. In Lutheran theology there is general
agreement on the necessity of distinguishing carefully between that which
happens in the civil sphere and that which takes place in the spiritual sphere.

[IronManMatt]

The lesson is this...

If a man prays or prophesies "having his head covered" he is in effect taking upon himself the position of the woman instead of his God given authority as the head of the household of God. If a woman "uncovers her head" she is in effect usurping the authority that is given the man. The lesson has to do with roles and responsibilities.

I agree with what you wrote, but based on your previous posts I’m am led to believe that you don’t think “having his head covered” means actually having some sort of cloth or fabric on ones head. But there is nothing in the passage that indicates that the covering is not a physical one. And many things that point out that it is a physical one.

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 (1)head covered, dishonoureth his (2)head.

-Now we know that the head of man is Christ. If the covering is not a physical one the first head can still be considered either physical or figurative.
(A)-If the first head is physical then a man’s head must be uncovered, but by what. What is the covering in this scenario that must not be in place on a man’s physical head.
(B) - If the covering is not physical and the first head is figurative then Jesus must be uncovered so as not to dishonor Him. That kind of makes sense keeping Christ uncovered could me that he is prevalent in your life and all those around you know it.

But,
5: But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head:…

So in scenario (B) the covering is figurative and the first head is also figurative then a woman must have man covered so as not to dishonor man. How does a woman figuratively keep man covered. What could that possibly mean.

Maybe my logic is off, but the only way this makes any sense to me is if the covering is physical, the first head is physical and the second head is figurative.

[DaRev]

The use of the "head covering" example in the text is to teach about authority and roles and responsibilities in the Church. Paul uses as an example the head gear used in the particular place and time he was writing. It is not a Law concerning women wearing hats in church. The teaching is about the order of authority.

[IronManMatt]

The use of the "head covering" example in the text is to teach about authority and roles and responsibilities in the Church Paul uses as an example the head gear used in the particular place and time he was writing. It is not a Law concerning women wearing hats in church. The teaching is about the order of authority.
How do you know that the “head covering” is just an example. If the head cover is an example what about the rules for conducting communion in the next half of the same chapter. Is communion just an example of how we are to treat each other during rituals.

33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

Maybe Paul was just telling us to do everything together. I don’t believe that, but it seems to be the same explanation you use for the first half of the chapter. I don’t see anything in Corinthians that would indicate that head coverings are just an example. Paul even addressed this epistle to all Christians, not just those at Corinth.

1: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2: Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

[DaSeminarian]

The use of the "head covering" example in the text is to teach about authority and roles and responsibilities in the Church Paul uses as an example the head gear used in the particular place and time he was writing. It is not a Law concerning women wearing hats in church. The teaching is about the order of authority.
How do you know that the “head covering” is just an example. If the head cover is an example what about the rules for conducting communion in the next half of the same chapter. Is communion just an example of how we are to treat each other during rituals.

Perhaps because he is a Pastor who has been trained in scripture. I think he would have a better handle on it than you.

[DaRev]

The use of the "head covering" example in the text is to teach about authority and roles and responsibilities in the Church Paul uses as an example the head gear used in the particular place and time he was writing. It is not a Law concerning women wearing hats in church. The teaching is about the order of authority.
How do you know that the “head covering” is just an example. If the head cover is an example what about the rules for conducting communion in the next half of the same chapter. Is communion just an example of how we are to treat each other during rituals.

33: Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another.

Maybe Paul was just telling us to do everything together. I don’t believe that, but it seems to be the same explanation you use for the first half of the chapter. I don’t see anything in Corinthians that would indicate that head coverings are just an example. Paul even addressed this epistle to all Christians, not just those at Corinth.

1: Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother,
2: Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:



Jesus told parables about vineyards. Does that mean that only vineyard workers are going to heaven? According to your logic and hermeneutic, yes.

They are examples used to teach a specific lesson or doctrine.

Context is king. Scripture interprets Scripture. Not only is the teaching regarding communion a completely different subject from roles and authority, Scripture also contains several other teachings regarding the Lord's Supper, so we certainly do know exactly what Paul is talking about. Not a very good comparison.

[david01]

Probably the best exposition on this topic that I have read was posted in the Ecclesiology forum under the thread, Headcoverings in Public Worship. I would commend (not command) everyone who has a serious interest in this issue to read that paper.

[Jenna]

Perhaps because he is a Pastor who has been trained in scripture. I think he would have a better handle on it than you.

Goodness, if going through seminary was the absolute assurance that we are always right, it's a wonder that pastors disagree about various Christian beliefs and doctrines. It's a curious thing.

[DaSeminarian]

[/font][/b]

Goodness, if going through seminary was the absolute assurance that we are always right, it's a wonder that pastors disagree about various Christian beliefs and doctrines. It's a curious thing.

No it is not, but I would put DaRev's knowledge of the scriptures against the other guy's any day of the week and figure that DaRev will be right 8.5 times out of 10 or maybe even more.

[Confess]

The use of the "head covering" example in the text is to teach about authority and roles and responsibilities in the Church. Paul uses as an example the head gear used in the particular place and time he was writing. It is not a Law concerning women wearing hats in church. The teaching is about the order of authority.
Exactly.

[IronManMatt]

Jesus told parables about vineyards. Does that mean that only vineyard workers are going to heaven?

Yes but when parables were spoken we are generally (if not always) clearly told that they are parables or examples. Ex:

Matthew 13: 3: And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
24: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
31: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field
33: Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened
44: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

Matthew 20: 1: For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Matthew 21: 33: Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

So on and so forth. There is no such phrase in 1 Corinthians 11 to indicate that a parable or example is being used. How do you know that this is a parable/example type of passage as no indication of this is given in the verses themselves. It seems from elsewhere in the Bible that if God wants us to here a parable or an example he lets us know that it is such. But if he wants to tell us something out right then he does,

1 Corinthians 11
1: 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.

This is very clear and very direct. How can you read this and say that it is a parable/example. By the way I respect the fact the DaRev is a pastor and I don’t claim to be a better Bible scholar then he, but as of yet he has not been able to answer my question. To be honest I would like to believe that the head covering issue is not really about head coverings. The reason being is that most Christian women I see, including my wife do not follow this teaching. I would like to think that they are right and I am wrong, but I cannot deny what I have read and have never been given a clear and logical answer as to why this passage isn’t about head coverings.
When I re-read the NT about a while back I came across this passage, one that I had not thought about in a long time. I read it many times and researched it online. After trying to convince myself that it had nothing to do with actual head coverings I stopped and told myself that I needed to change myself to conform to the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. I presented this passage to my wife, explained it to her and requested her to research it on her own. I then asked her what she thought. She told me that she thought it was about actual head coverings and that head coverings are required for women when praying or prophesying. However my wife said that she would not follow this teaching because no one in our church did and she has never known a Christian who did. My wife said that she does not understand why it is required and said that if she went to a church were the majority of the women followed this teaching then she probably would also. She said that although it is something that is a requirement, it is not as important as other things and so is not really a big deal.

[RadMan]

Jesus told parables about vineyards. Does that mean that only vineyard workers are going to heaven?

Yes but when parables were spoken we are generally (if not always) clearly told that they are parables or examples. Ex:

Matthew 13: 3: And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
24: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
31: Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field
33: Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened
44: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45: Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:

Matthew 20: 1: For the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard.

Matthew 21: 33: Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country:

So on and so forth. There is no such phrase in 1 Corinthians 11 to indicate that a parable or example is being used. How do you know that this is a parable/example type of passage as no indication of this is given in the verses themselves. It seems from elsewhere in the Bible that if God wants us to here a parable or an example he lets us know that it is such. But if he wants to tell us something out right then he does,

1 Corinthians 11
1: 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.

This is very clear and very direct. How can you read this and say that it is a parable/example. By the way I respect the fact the DaRev is a pastor and I don’t claim to be a better Bible scholar then he, but as of yet he has not been able to answer my question. To be honest I would like to believe that the head covering issue is not really about head coverings. The reason being is that most Christian women I see, including my wife do not follow this teaching. I would like to think that they are right and I am wrong, but I cannot deny what I have read and have never been given a clear and logical answer as to why this passage isn’t about head coverings.
When I re-read the NT about a while back I came across this passage, one that I had not thought about in a long time. I read it many times and researched it online. After trying to convince myself that it had nothing to do with actual head coverings I stopped and told myself that I needed to change myself to conform to the teachings of the Bible, not the other way around. I presented this passage to my wife, explained it to her and requested her to research it on her own. I then asked her what she thought. She told me that she thought it was about actual head coverings and that head coverings are required for women when praying or prophesying. However my wife said that she would not follow this teaching because no one in our church did and she has never known a Christian who did. My wife said that she does not understand why it is required and said that if she went to a church were the majority of the women followed this teaching then she probably would also. She said that although it is something that is a requirement, it is not as important as other things and so is not really a big deal.

What denomination are you? I don't see anything listed.

[DaRev]

I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. I can't do anything about that.

I can't be any clearer than I have. No one else here has indicated that my reposne was not succinct. In fact, I have received a number of remarks that indicate that my response to you was clearly understood by them.

The bottom line is that the passages in question are not a command that women must wear hats to church. Paul uses a cultural practice of the time as a means to teach a greater universal truth, that being the order of responsibility and authority.

[IronManMatt]

What denomination are you? I don't see anything listed.

I went to a Baptist church in my old town. My wife and I are not trying to decide between a Baptist church in our new town and the Lutheran church.

I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. I can't do anything about that.

I can't be any clearer than I have. No one else here has indicated that my reposne was not succinct. In fact, I have received a number of remarks that indicate that my response to you was clearly understood by them.

The bottom line is that the passages in question are not a command that women must wear hats to church. Paul uses a cultural practice of the time as a means to teach a greater universal truth, that being the order of responsibility and authority.

Maybe I’m a slow learner, but I still don’t see how this is a cultural practice of the time which was used to teach a greater universal truth. What in the passage itself says or indicates that this was a cultural practice of the time.

[QuiltAngel]

Everytime I see a discussion on this subject, I wonder why God did not make it that men's hair would only grow so long. I know, kind of a simplistic response, but He could have done that.

[IronManMatt]

Everytime I see a discussion on this subject, I wonder why God did not make it that men's hair would only grow so long. I know, kind of a simplistic response, but He could have done that.

That would have been nice, but you can say that about any command. Such as God could have made us not have any desire to lie, or think bad things about our neighbors, or steal etc.. But humans do have those desires and God gave us commands against them.

[LilLamb219]

Why didn't God make Eve wear a headcovering when he evicted her and Adam from the Garden of Eden?

[Anemone]

I've heard of some people who believe that a woman shouldn't cut her hair at all.

But what of those women who have thinner than thin hair or the ones who have hair so thick that they cant even run a comb through it without it getting stuck.

A shorter, easy to care for hairstyle may be the only way to make it look decent.

[PreachersWife2004]

I don't consider "Thou shalt not cut thy hair" to be one of the commandments.

[LilLamb219]

I've heard of some people who believe that a woman shouldn't cut her hair at all.

But what of those women who have thinner than thin hair or the ones who have hair so thick that they cant even run a comb through it without it getting stuck.

A shorter, easy to care for hairstyle may be the only way to make it look decent.

I probably wrote this earlier, but also the people with African blood in them who might have a hard time growing their hair "long"...by nature it just doesn't happen!

[Confess]

Why didn't God make Eve wear a headcovering when he evicted her and Adam from the Garden of Eden?
Why didn't God make Eve wear dresses?

[DaSeminarian]

I don't consider "Thou shalt not cut thy hair" to be one of the commandments.


THat only applied to one person in the Bible as far as I know. He lost his strength when his hair was cut. I am glad that is not applicable to me because I desperately need a haircut. :D

[PreachersWife2004]

THat only applied to one person in the Bible as far as I know. He lost his strength when his hair was cut. I am glad that is not applicable to me because I desperately need a haircut. :D

hey, and look who got him in that mess! Yet another woman!

No wonder we have such bad reputations!

^_^

[LilLamb219]

Why didn't God make Eve wear dresses?

I dunno, but from all the biblical "artwork" I've seen, Eve wore some pretty skimpy bikini top and skirtish bottom made of animal skins. ^_^ If God expects ME to dress like that, He better help me out in toning my body a bit more! :sorry:

[RadMan]

I dunno, but from all the biblical "artwork" I've seen, Eve wore some pretty skimpy bikini top and skirtish bottom made of animal skins. ^_^ If God expects ME to dress like that, He better help me out in toning my body a bit more! :sorry:Fig leaves. Why do I remember fig leaves for Adam and Eve? Must be a memory from when I was a kid or maybe a painting of Rembrants.

[RadMan]

Happy Birthday Scott :)

[DaSeminarian]

Happy Birthday Scott :)


Thanks Radman. Sunday actually marks the date of my birth, but I will be busy with Opening Chapel day here at CTS. I lector for both services at my fieldwork church and teach Sunday school. After church I will be going to the Brunch at the sem and hopefully duck away for a couple of hours to watch some Football. Chapel begins at 3:00 followed by a reception and then classes begin on Monday. So you see quite busy. I now have to clean my house top to bottom.

[DaRev]

Fig leaves. Why do I remember fig leaves for Adam and Eve? Must be a memory from when I was a kid or maybe a painting of Rembrants.

When they first realized that they were naked, that is what they used to cover themselves.
Genesis 3:7, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they werenaked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."
The animal skins came later in verse 21.

[DaSeminarian]

When they first realized that they were naked, that is what they used to cover themselves.
Genesis 3:7, "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they werenaked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."

The animal skins came later in verse 21.



Yeah and it was God who took the lives of the animals to make the skins. :preach:

[DaRev]

Something had to die to cover Man's sin.

[DaSeminarian]

Something had to die to cover Man's sin.


Very good JPW.

[DoomRyderOCST]

I went to a Baptist church in my old town. My wife and I are not trying to decide between a Baptist church in our new town and the Lutheran church.


IronManMatt,

I'll be praying for God to lead you to the right church. I'm also from a Baptist background but lately I believe God has been leading me in a more Lutheran direction.

Oops, I'm off-topic. Back on topic, until a few years ago, I had very long hair for a guy. When people would ask me about this, I would just point at my wife and say that my hair is short in comparison to hers. ;)

[Jenna]

Heehee...

My husband used to have really long hair, but cut it so it would be shorter than mine. It really got on his nerves when a waitress would walk up to our table and ask what we "ladies" were having. It's amazing how many people don't actually look AT YOU when they are talking to you. Ugh.

Eventually, he opted for what his barber refers to as a standard "man's haircut". lol It's a little hard to get into management with long hair.

[IronManMatt]

I used to have "long" hair also and still would if I could, my job requires a very short cut. But I would always keep my hair shorter then my wife's.

[DoomRyderOCST]

Heehee...

My husband used to have really long hair, but cut it so it would be shorter than mine. It really got on his nerves when a waitress would walk up to our table and ask what we "ladies" were having. It's amazing how many people don't actually look AT YOU when they are talking to you. Ugh.

.

Yep, I've heard that one about 'ladies' before when I had long hair.

[Qoheleth]

If a man prays or prophesies "having his head covered" he is in effect taking upon himself the position of the woman instead of his God given authority as the head of the household of God. If a woman "uncovers her head" she is in effect usurping the authority that is given the man. The lesson has to do with roles and responsibilities.


Really, Rev? Paul is making an appeal to creation and to Godly authority in order to make his case, is he not?






Rev, where is this taught officially?



Instead consider that head coverings have nothing to do with women's subjugation to men or husbands' domination over wives, not directly related to "Church order" or any of the vague reasons given. It is indirectly related to Creation order, the man coming before the woman. The injunction to men NOT to have their heads covered and the injunction to women to have their heads covered have to do primarily with the glory of God.

v.4 "Every man praying or prophesying having his head covered dishonoureth his head".

vv. 5, 6 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head, for that is even all one as if she were shaved.

Paul now gives the reason in v.7, a very important verse, the key verse to the understanding of the whole passage.


"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".



The covering of the woman is not, as we can now see, the symbol of woman's subjection or submission to man, or simply an ancient outmoded custom. It speaks of an important doctrine, the doctrine of the fallen glory of man and woman who have been redeemed. If the woman's head is uncovered, the glory of man assumes a status equal to the glory of God. Therefore, man's glory must be placed in proper perspective, completely overshadowed by God's glory. While God's glory is properly revealed by men's heads being uncovered, man's fallen glory is depicted by the head covering of the woman in Christian gatherings. Therefore, both man and woman fulfill their respective functions of manifesting glory.

The woman's head covering is symbolic of the glory of both man and woman being covered, that is the fallen glory of the whole of mankind is pictured as being represented by the woman's head being covered. Both man and woman come under the same symbolic covering, as both have sinned and have been redeemed.

In Creation, man (Adam) was formed before woman (Eve) and Eve was taken from Adam's side. So Adam was not of Eve but Eve of Adam; that is, Adam was the source from whom Eve was created. Further, man was not created for the woman but the woman was created for the purpose of being man's helpmate, man's companion, and together they form a complementary whole or unit.

The verse makes it clear that this authority is on the woman's head. What in the context does the woman put on her head? The head covering of course! The authority is the head covering. It cannot be the woman's individual authority, or the man's authority, it is the head covering which is the symbol of God's authority, and this authority is over man. So the woman ought to have this covering as the emblem of God's authority over man on her head, to differentiate between the glory of God and the fallen glory of man under God's authority.

Now someone will surely say, "Ah, this definitely teaches that woman is inferior to man and is subject to him". Paul anticipates and refutes this thinking in the next two verses (11 and 12).
"Nevertheless, neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so also is the man by the woman, but all things of God".

Paul has two more points to cover. In anticipation of the question, "What about long hair as a covering, what is it for?", Paul explains that long hair is important to a woman because it is an expression of her personal glory. "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair; it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering" (vv 14, 15).

The glory of God is completely revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ. His redemptive work has brought about the formation of the Church, God's New Creation, upon which God now puts His stamp of approval as the visible expression of His glory.

Man reflects the glory of God by virtue of his being created first, whilst woman reflects the fallen glory of man and woman, but both are equal in the Lord and interdependent, because while woman came from man at Creation, man comes by woman through birth. The full glory of God is manifested and symbolised by men worshipping with uncovered heads, whilst the fallen glory of man (representing redeemed men and women) is symbolised by women having a covering on their heads. (M. Vine)


Q

[Anemone]

I know it's said that long hair is a woman's glory but what if I dont want that glory? What if I think of that glory as a pain?

Also, not every woman has beautiful hair. Some women's hair becomes downright uncontrollable when worn long. Somw have hair that's just to scraggly and ratty to wear long.

Then there's women like me. When the hair is worn long, we become very vain about it. If hair is going to be a source of vanity wouldn't it be better to not wear it long.

Some women may love long hair but some women see long hair as too much of a hassle.

[Jim47]

What denomination are you? I don't see anything listed.

I went to a Baptist church in my old town. My wife and I are not trying to decide between a Baptist church in our new town and the Lutheran church.

I have answered your question. You just don't like the answer. I can't do anything about that.

I can't be any clearer than I have. No one else here has indicated that my reposne was not succinct. In fact, I have received a number of remarks that indicate that my response to you was clearly understood by them.

The bottom line is that the passages in question are not a command that women must wear hats to church. Paul uses a cultural practice of the time as a means to teach a greater universal truth, that being the order of responsibility and authority.

Maybe I’m a slow learner, but I still don’t see how this is a cultural practice of the time which was used to teach a greater universal truth. What in the passage itself says or indicates that this was a cultural practice of the time.



To answer your question I will take a different angle.

If a woman is required to have long hair and cover her head to be saved, then that is a law. Where did God add that to the law?

If we are saved by observing laws and keeping the commandments and not by faith, are you comfortable with your life and having kept all of God's law that you will be accpeted on your own merits?

If we are saved by observing laws how many must we observe? All of them or only the ones we choose?

What about all our past sins, how do we atone for them? If its by keeping the law then we do we continue to stumble and break the law.

If we are saved by keeping the law then why did Jesus say no one can come to the Father except by Him?

If we are saved by laws, then why did Jesus have to suffer and die for us to make us perfect.

I could keep up all these silly questions for a long time, but the fact is we are not saved by the law, we are saved by faith through grace. Note my signature>>>

[Qoheleth]

If we are saved by observing laws and keeping the commandments and not by faith, are you comfortable with your life and having kept all of God's law that you will be accpeted on your own merits?


I do not think anyone is saying any of this, i.e. we are saved by our own merits or keeping the law perfectly, so I wonder if the point isnt being missed?

Jim, what is your understanding of the 3rd use of the Law in all this?


Still...


John 14:21 (http://bible.cc/john/14-21.htm) "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."John 14:23 (http://bible.cc/john/14-23.htm) Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
John 15:10 (http://bible.cc/john/15-10.htm) "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
1 John 5:3 (http://bible.cc/1_john/5-3.htm) For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
2 John 1:6 (http://bible.cc/2_john/1-6.htm) And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.


If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Q

[Jim47]

I do not think anyone is saying any of this, i.e. we are saved by our own merits or keeping the law perfectly, so I wonder if the point isnt being missed?

Jim, what is your understanding of the 3rd use of the Law in all this?


Still...


John 14:21 (http://bible.cc/john/14-21.htm) "He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."John 14:23 (http://bible.cc/john/14-23.htm) Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.
John 15:10 (http://bible.cc/john/15-10.htm) "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love.
1 John 5:3 (http://bible.cc/1_john/5-3.htm) For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.
2 John 1:6 (http://bible.cc/2_john/1-6.htm) And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it.


If ye love me, keep my commandments.


Q




Fron what I agthered of his argumenst was that we must observe this hair thing or we are rejecting what God has told us to do and we are not in His graces? I could read it again, but its not a scriptural argument nor teachings.

The 3rd use of the law is as a guide. We can't keep the law and it is foolish to think that we can keep any part of it.

Co.2:8 8See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Colossians%202)



We can use the law to guide us in many things. God wrote His law into our hearts, so even unbelievers have no excuse.

[RadMan]

I know it's said that long hair is a woman's glory but what if I dont want that glory? What if I think of that glory as a pain?

Also, not every woman has beautiful hair. Some women's hair becomes downright uncontrollable when worn long. Somw have hair that's just to scraggly and ratty to wear long.

Then there's women like me. When the hair is worn long, we become very vain about it. If hair is going to be a source of vanity wouldn't it be better to not wear it long.

Some women may love long hair but some women see long hair as too much of a hassle.Tell God you don't want to wear it long. Not us

[RadMan]

Paul has two more points to cover. In anticipation of the question, "What about long hair as a covering, what is it for?", Paul explains that long hair is important to a woman because it is an expression of her personal glory. "Doth not nature itself teach you that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him. But if a woman have long hair; it is a glory to her, for her hair is given her for a covering" (vv 14, 15).

So maybe this whole discussion is mote because this is what Paul means by women covering the head? Not a physical headpiece or whatever they had back then? Just the hair being the covering? Maybe someone with "real" Koine Greek training can give us a translation, in context, of "covering" from all of Paul's quotes. That might clear this whole thing up.

[IronManMatt]

Fron what I agthered of his argumenst was that we must observe this hair thing or we are rejecting what God has told us to do and we are not in His graces? I could read it again, but its not a scriptural argument nor teachings.

My argument is that God, through Paul, told men and women to do specific things with hair length and head coverings and so we should do them. If a man prays with his head covered then he is sinning. Lucky for us Jesus can forgive all sins, but that gives us no right to sin. If we abuse grace by not even trying to follow certain God given rules such as hair length and head coverings then are we truly placing our trust in Christ?

So maybe this whole discussion is mote because this is what Paul means by women covering the head? Not a physical headpiece or whatever they had back then? Just the hair being the covering? Maybe someone with "real" Koine Greek training can give us a translation, in context, of "covering" from all of Paul's quotes. That might clear this whole thing up.

This must have been explained before but oh well. If one logically reads the passage one will see that the hair is not the required covering that Paul is referring to at the beginning of the passage.

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.

If a woman’s hair was the required covering when praying and prophesizing then this verse would not make sense. For the women to not be covered she would have to be without hair, then how could she shorn. This passage says that if a women is not wearing a head covering she might as well also be shorn of her hair.

[DaRev]

Fron what I agthered of his argumenst was that we must observe this hair thing or we are rejecting what God has told us to do and we are not in His graces? I could read it again, but its not a scriptural argument nor teachings.

My argument is that God, through Paul, told men and women to do specific things with hair length and head coverings and so we should do them. If a man prays with his head covered then he is sinning. Lucky for us Jesus can forgive all sins, but that gives us no right to sin. If we abuse grace by not even trying to follow certain God given rules such as hair length and head coverings then are we truly placing our trust in Christ?

So maybe this whole discussion is mote because this is what Paul means by women covering the head? Not a physical headpiece or whatever they had back then? Just the hair being the covering? Maybe someone with "real" Koine Greek training can give us a translation, in context, of "covering" from all of Paul's quotes. That might clear this whole thing up.

This must have been explained before but oh well. If one logically reads the passage one will see that the hair is not the required covering that Paul is referring to at the beginning of the passage.

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.

If a woman’s hair was the required covering when praying and prophesizing then this verse would not make sense. For the women to not be covered she would have to be without hair, then how could she shorn. This passage says that if a women is not wearing a head covering she might as well also be shorn of her hair.

:doh:

[Jim47]

:doh:




:doh: :doh: :doh: ;)

[Jim47]

Cat got your tongue Rev? ;)

[LilLamb219]

Mind if I join you guys?

:doh::doh::doh::doh:

[DaSeminarian]

Fron what I agthered of his argumenst was that we must observe this hair thing or we are rejecting what God has told us to do and we are not in His graces? I could read it again, but its not a scriptural argument nor teachings.

My argument is that God, through Paul, told men and women to do specific things with hair length and head coverings and so we should do them. If a man prays with his head covered then he is sinning. Lucky for us Jesus can forgive all sins, but that gives us no right to sin. If we abuse grace by not even trying to follow certain God given rules such as hair length and head coverings then are we truly placing our trust in Christ?

So maybe this whole discussion is mote because this is what Paul means by women covering the head? Not a physical headpiece or whatever they had back then? Just the hair being the covering? Maybe someone with "real" Koine Greek training can give us a translation, in context, of "covering" from all of Paul's quotes. That might clear this whole thing up.

This must have been explained before but oh well. If one logically reads the passage one will see that the hair is not the required covering that Paul is referring to at the beginning of the passage.

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.

If a woman’s hair was the required covering when praying and prophesizing then this verse would not make sense. For the women to not be covered she would have to be without hair, then how could she shorn. This passage says that if a women is not wearing a head covering she might as well also be shorn of her hair.


Matt,

I am going to write this all off on the experience you have had hearing scripture in churches that are not Lutheran.

This kind of rationale in the specific epistle of which you are referring speaks only a Law message and completely void of the Gospel message based on the way you are giving it to us. If there is I would like you to spell it out for me as you understand it.

After you have done so I or DaRev or someone else will give you again what the Gospel of this message is only if it disagrees with what you said. Try not to be argumentative, but rather take what we say and go back and read scripture again with the Gospel message we give you and see if there isn't a bit more grace from God than you are giving.

You came here to ask these questions of Lutherans. I encourage you to take what is said and be a Berean and search the scriptures for the truth. If what we say is wrong than fine, but if what we say is true than what have you got to lose.

God's blessings on your study.

[Jim47]

Mind if I join you guys?

:doh::doh::doh::doh:




Why not ? the more the merrier Heh? :doh:

[porterross]

How about this for a communion queue, Rev?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/ascothotcrowd.jpg

[Jenna]

For some reason, I just don't think that is what's being suggested. lol We are told to be soberly dressed.....


...they do kind of look like a fruit salad, the more that I look at them.... *laughs*

[DaSeminarian]

How about this for a communion queue, Rev?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/ascothotcrowd.jpg


Looks more like a garden party. The flowers are the hats right?

:scratch:

[IronManMatt]

This kind of rationale in the specific epistle of which you are referring speaks only a Law message and completely void of the Gospel message based on the way you are giving it to us. If there is I would like you to spell it out for me as you understand it.

Yes God gave laws in the New Testament that are to be followed, so what. The law part of this passage is easy to understand. Men don’t cover when praying and prophesizing and wear short hair, women do the opposite. The deeper meaning and reason for this is not so clear. From the passage we know that it has to do with man being the glory of God and woman being the glory of man. It also has something to do with this practice’s benefits to angels (verse 10). As is many things God does not fully explain all things to our liking, that does not mean that we should not trust Him and obey Him. Faith is not following God because he has shown us all things. God understands all so we put our faith in Him even though we do not understand all. Take a look at Qoheleth’s explaination he has some good ideas.

[porterross]

For some reason, I just don't think that is what's being suggested. lol We are told to be soberly dressed.....


...they do kind of look like a fruit salad, the more that I look at them.... *laughs*

Hey, their heads are covered. Technically, they're good to go! :thumbsup:

I'd rather wear a cap. No need to mess with the hair on Sunday morning. Something to think about, Ladies. ;)

[RadMan]

Oiy veah-----what are the poor Jewish people gong to do that wears Yalmukes?

[DaRev]

How about this for a communion queue, Rev?

http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k101/pocolocogal/ascothotcrowd.jpg

^_^ I don't think I could keep a straight face at the altar! ^_^ ^_^

[Jim47]

Hey, their heads are covered. Technically, they're good to go! :thumbsup:

I'd rather wear a cap. No need to mess with the hair on Sunday morning. Something to think about, Ladies. ;)




I know better then that PR ^_^ I'll bet you have never entered church with a single hair out of place.

Now me on the other hand, if I came to church with neat hair they aould all wonder who the new guy was :P

[DaRev]

I know better then that PR ^_^ I'll bet you have never entered church with a single hair out of place.

This I know as well. ;)

[porterross]

I know better then that PR ^_^ I'll bet you have never entered church with a single hair out of place.


This I know as well. ;)


I have never heard one man complain about my hair, either in church or out in the world. :tutu:

[DaRev]

I have never heard one man complain about my hair, either in church or out in the world. :tutu:

Well... to be honest... men don't spend a lot of time looking at hair. ;) :D

[porterross]

Well... to be honest... men don't spend a lot of time looking at hair. ;) :D


Then why do they get upset when women cut their long hair?

[DaRev]

I never said we don't look at it.

[RadMan]

Then why do they get upset when women cut their long hair?Yep----definitely----like those long silky tresses.

[Tofferer]

My wife wears her hair long. I like it that way. However, she does cut it once every couple of years and donates her hair to "Locks of Love". When this happens, as it will this year, she never gets it cut shorter than shoulder length. Nor does it seem to me that anyone complains (well, there is my father-in-law, but he's pentecostal-interesting story there, maybe I should share someday?) Still, I do agree that this is more of an authority issue than it is about hair (which I am slowly starting to lack). In this case, it is God's established authority over home and church. Women do have a role in these, but it is not the role that men should take (I know of too many families in which husbands have either surrendered or been stripped of thier authority). Nor would it be right for a man to surrender that role.

[BigNorsk]

We need to get this issue right once and for all.

Men should not wear hats when praying.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:tt-5RJYT9YZtDM:http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/9301.jpg

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:O1HetZtRYP4fSM:http://www.livetourartists.com/al_simmons/simmons-big-hat.jpg

Women should.

This must be praying at the wailing wall or something.

http://wacocitizen.com/cutenews/data/upimages/winningBirdHat.gif

There are other interesting women's hats.
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/SykesSnakePA_468x309.jpg
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/ascot3G2006_468x710.jpg

There, I hope it's clear now.

Marv

[PreachersWife2004]

Well, last Saturday I cut my tresses. Not that my hair was really long or anything. But here's part of the finished product:

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j111/PezGirl1973/100_0953.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j111/PezGirl1973/100_0954.jpg

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j111/PezGirl1973/100_0964.jpg

I really like it, because it's SO easy to take care of. Maybe now I won't be late to church!! :)

[RadMan]

Well, last Saturday I cut my tresses. Not that my hair was really long or anything. But here's part of the finished product:

I really like it, because it's SO easy to take care of. Maybe now I won't be late to church!! :)
The wallpaper doesn't do anything for your hair. :blush: :eek:

[LilLamb219]

PW, it's cute. Your character shows curly hair though...did you remove all the curl??? :)

[Tofferer]

There's a reason I put a hat on my charactor. If you saw my head, you'd agree I am starting to lack in the hair department. Truthfully, my choice of hat that I normally wear causes confusion to those who don't know me. They somehow think I'm from Austrailia (heck of a compliment if you ask me). Hope laughs at me when I tell her that and then complains if I ask her to shave my head (something I do in the summer to keep cool).

[PreachersWife2004]

The wallpaper doesn't do anything for your hair. :blush: :eek:

Oh that's not wallpaper, that's just the pattern on the futon mattress. :D

The room I took these pics in is the playroom/my office/guest room. We like our rooms to multi-task!

[Jim47]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j111/PezGirl1973/100_0953.jpg





Where did your ear go? Did you cut that off too? ;)


If so, pleaase send it my way as mine don't work anymore :help:

[PreachersWife2004]

Ha. Ha.

My ear is still there...it's just covered. Let's see, that is my good ear, too, so I would need to hang onto it.

[DaSeminarian]

Reminds me of the musical from the 60s

Give me lots of Hair, long beautiful hair...

[Zecryphon]

Reminds me of the musical from the 60s

Give me lots of Hair, long beautiful hair...
I used to long to have my hair back. But I have to be content with having my back hair long. LOL Nah, I'm just kidding. But I gotta tell ya, living in Arizona where it's gonna be anywhere from 80 to 113 degrees outside, depending on the time of year, I really am fond of # 1 1/2 on the electric clippers. :cool: When my hair responds to a comb going through it, it's time to get it cut again. LOL

[Jim47]

Ha. Ha.

My ear is still there...it's just covered. Let's see, that is my good ear, too, so I would need to hang onto it.



My darling bride is always trying to whack my ears off when she cuts my hair, thankfully the clippers are too dull ^_^

[porterross]

Well, last Saturday I cut my tresses. Not that my hair was really long or anything. But here's part of the finished product:

I really like it, because it's SO easy to take care of. Maybe now I won't be late to church!! :)



You have thick hair! I like the cut, too. Just in time for winter. :D

I haven't had my hair that short since high school, but it is so much easier to care for and cheaper to maintain. My hair maintenance expenses will NEVER be common knowledge in my home when I marry. It should just be appreciated. :tutu: ;)

[DaSeminarian]

You have thick hair! I like the cut, too. Just in time for winter. :D

I haven't had my hair that short since high school, but it is so much easier to care for and cheaper to maintain. My hair maintenance expenses will NEVER be common knowledge in my home when I marry. It should just be appreciated. :tutu: ;)

:confused: Married? Are you hinting heavily here or am I being presumptuous again? ;)

[DaRev]

:confused: Married? Are you hinting heavily here or am I being presumptuous again? ;)

Don't scare her away, for crying out loud!!!

[filosofer]

I have been cutting my wife's hair for the past 12 years.

In Christ's love,
filo

[porterross]

:confused: Married? Are you hinting heavily here or am I being presumptuous again? ;)


:doh: I do so pray for impartial clerical assistance soon. Every Lutheran pastor I mention this to takes guess who's side. I'm seriously considering consulting a priest. :D Seriously. :|

[DaRev]

I'm seriously considering consulting a priest. :D Seriously. :|

He'd be on my side, too. ;) ^_^ ^_^

[DaSeminarian]

Don't scare her away, for crying out loud!!!


I don't think that Porterross scares too easily. She's an adult and can take care of herself I am sure. :D

[PreachersWife2004]

He'd be on my side, too. ;) ^_^ ^_^

Heck, he'd probably be jealous!

PR, if it's any consolation, I find that if you love a man, and he shows the qualities of a good strong, solid Christian, then his chosen profession really doesn't matter in the long run.

I fought even meeting my pastor husband for a year before I finally did meet him. I used every excuse under the sun: "I'm not dating anyone" (I was dating a Catholic!) "I'm not interested in being a pastor's wife (well, that part was true) "I'm not suitable material for a pastor's wife" (Uh, I'll plead the fifth on that right now) "I don't want to move to Detroit" (My MOM didn't want my SON moving to Detroit!)...in the end it didn't matter what excuses I had, because God knew what He wanted for me!

So I take YOUR side in this...you need to do what makes you happy, and what is God-pleasing. Personally, I'd love to see you hitched to a certain reverend man who I've grown to respect and consider a friend here, but only because it appears to me that you two have a great deal of respect for each other, your faith, your families, and you guys can have fun with each other too.

Stepping off my soapbox now. Ahem.

:amen:

[LilLamb219]

Happy Birthday tomorrow PW :)

[filosofer]

Happy birthday, Beckie. :)

In Christ's love,
filo

[Jim47]

PreachersWife2004;




Happy Birthday Beckie :clap:

[PreachersWife2004]

Thanks guys! It's tomorrow, actually. We went out to dinner yesterday since we have choir practice tomorrow night. We ate at Red Robin, one of my favorite restaurants. Mmmm...

[RadMan]

Heck, he'd probably be jealous!

PR, if it's any consolation, I find that if you love a man, and he shows the qualities of a good strong, solid Christian, then his chosen profession really doesn't matter in the long run.

I fought even meeting my pastor husband for a year before I finally did meet him. I used every excuse under the sun: "I'm not dating anyone" (I was dating a Catholic!) "I'm not interested in being a pastor's wife (well, that part was true) "I'm not suitable material for a pastor's wife" (Uh, I'll plead the fifth on that right now) "I don't want to move to Detroit" (My MOM didn't want my SON moving to Detroit!)...in the end it didn't matter what excuses I had, because God knew what He wanted for me!

So I take YOUR side in this...you need to do what makes you happy, and what is God-pleasing. Personally, I'd love to see you hitched to a certain reverend man who I've grown to respect and consider a friend here, but only because it appears to me that you two have a great deal of respect for each other, your faith, your families, and you guys can have fun with each other too.

Stepping off my soapbox now. Ahem.

:amen:CAN I HEAR AN AMEN!

Happy Birthday to :)

[RadMan]

:doh: I do so pray for impartial clerical assistance soon. Every Lutheran pastor I mention this to takes guess who's side. I'm seriously considering consulting a priest. :D Seriously. :|Well I'm not impartial and I'm not a cleric but I can't imagine two more obstinate, Christian people that would make a great team and compliment each other. We've never met either of you but I think we all have you pegged.

I feel like singing "Matchmaker, matchmaker bring me a match". Who sang that---Sidel?

OK--who's going to pay me off for this. Checks are fine :)

[WildStrawberry]

Uh...how 'bout chocolate, Rad? :D

Happy Birthday to all the ROCKtober birthday "kids"!!!

Kae

[RadMan]

Chocolate ??

[WildStrawberry]

Chocolate ??

yeah...in lieu of the checks and money and that stuff.

LOL

Kae

[RadMan]

yeah...in lieu of the checks and money and that stuff.

LOL

KaeOh Lord deliver me from temptation. :liturgy:

Chocolate-----I wouldn't see the light of day till it was all devoured. :ebil:.

[WildStrawberry]

ah HA! Now I know how to bribe you!

Ah HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Kidding! I'm the same way with good chocolate. Mmm.

Kae

[Jim47]

I dine ate my chocolate already today and seeing's how I have a growing problem I need to wait a couple more days now before I can enjoy more :cry:

[LilLamb219]

I can't have chocolate any more :( Someone eat some for me!

[Jim47]

I can't have chocolate any more :( Someone eat some for me!



Aww, that is really a shame. :hug:

I can't imagine life without chocolate. :yum: I'll help you out Lamby and eat your share too ^_^

[ctay]

Early Happy birthday greetings from me to Wildstrawberry and Jim.

I love chocolate

[Tofferer]

Chocolate? Sounds like a full meal to me.

[filosofer]

Chocolate - covers the four main food groups!

In Christ's love,
filo

[KimLCMS]

I missed a bunch in here. How did we go from hair to chocolate?:yum: :yum: :yum: :yum:

[Jim47]

I missed a bunch in here. How did we go from hair to chocolate?:yum: :yum: :yum: :yum:



Thats not a mystery to me but I wonder how we missed the brew :D

[Tofferer]

Jim,

I have no clue. I think that I have a better chance of regrowing my hair than I do of answering that question. Oh, and before I forget.



HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!