Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

good idea:



Also Bro Esaias, would you please show how 1 Cor 11 is based on an ordinance rather than a cultural requirement that is outdated.

Paul's teaching did not and does not depend on secular culture. The sinner folks in Corinth would not have freaked out about Christian women prying with their head uncovered, for the following reasons:

1. Sinner folks would not likely have been in a church meeting to begin with. Churches met in one another's homes, the gatherings were private affairs. While it is true that an unbeliever or unlearned one might come in, that was an exception, not a rule.

2. There were many varied and different religious practices throughout the Roman Empire, religious bigotry was not common. Some religious groups practiced orgiastic drunken parties as part of their worship. With such a milieu it is highly unlikely they would have been 'shocked' at seeing Christian women praying without a headcovering.

3. The practice of headcovering was varied, there was no 'Gentile standard'. Therefore, pagans would not have been shocked or scandalised at variety in the Christian congregational practice, either.

4. The only offense might have been taken by Jews. However, Jewish custom was not settled at that time. The practice of Jewish men covering their heads at prayer was a later medieval invention (see my previous post).

5. Paul never once referred to giving anyone offense in regard to this practice. The reasons he gives for his instruction on headcovering are rooted in Biblical precepts from the Law - he references the order of creation, the hierarchy of authority established since the Fall, the angels. He speaks of nature (not social custom) as teaching the same lesson (and nature is the result of God's creation).

6. He concludes by stating that what he taught is a universal Christian custom, it is the custom of all the churches of God. He said 'if any man be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God'. This means that whatever someone would contend for against Paul's teaching, had no support anywhere in the churches of God. In other words, the churches of God all, universally, practiced what Paul was trying to teach the Corinthians.

7. He even begins the discourse by referencing apostolic traditions/ordinances, things taught by the apostle - 'delivered' to the Corinthians - then correcting them on this instance. Thus, the headcovering was an issue relating to apostolic ordinances or 'practicing the faith'.

In short, there is simply no support whatsoever from the text indicating Paul was concerned about Corinthian sinners being scandalised by Christian women praying without a headcovering, and that if the scandal went away the need for headcovering would go away as well.

If the man was still created first, if the man is still the head of the woman, if the angels are still involved, then the woman still ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

[Esaias]

Paul is instructing Christian women to wear a headcovering when they pray or prophesy, and Christian men to not wear a headcovering when doing the same.

What about widows and single women and young girls?

Unmarried women can certainly wear a headcovering.

What about Nazarites?

Years ago, either here, or on nFCF, or on FCF, we had an interesting discussion about this. Brother Bassett and I were discussing the Nazarites in particular and it's relation to Paul's statement that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him. I have no idea where that discussion is located, but it was very enlightening, imo. By having uncut hair, a Nazarite became a 'gazing stock' so to say. Similarly to when people wore sackcloth and ashes, it was out of the ordinary. By taking a Nazarite vow, a man devoted himself to God and became an 'aberration' of sorts compared to the surrounding society, thus picturing that being devoted to God meant being out of the ordinary, an outcast of sorts. I really wish I knew where that discussion was, it delved into Bible, history, culture, etc.

Isn't this just a local, cultural thing?

1Co_11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul gave a teaching and an instruction about the proper way to do something. If anybody wanted to contend against his instruction, he had a final appeal, that neither him and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, had any such custom as would be contended for by the contentious one in opposition to Paul's teaching.

Jesus regularly opposed those who taught as doctrine the traditions and commandments of men. The apostolic churches followed Christ and His apostles. Christ led his apostles to teach, and their teachings were indeed the teachings of God. They laid down 'ordinances' or traditions that were to be followed, and which were independent of 'cultural customs' of the day, and which had the seal of God's approval. The Pharisees had their own traditions, but those traditions usually led people into ways to violate the written commandments of God. There is a Pharisaic halachah, and there is the halachah of Christ, delivered by his apostles.

Paul's instructions regarding headcovering during prayer and worship were contrary to the culture of the day. Among the Gentiles, some men and women both practiced covering, whereas some practiced uncovered prayer and worship. And some practiced a divided custom, where men and women had opposite practices (usually men being covered and women being uncovered). Jewish women were covered at all times anyway, and usually would not be allowed to offer prayer or to prophesy (sing?) in the synagogue. So again, Paul's teachings were contrary to EVERYBODY'S 'cultural customs'.

The church has it's own customs, it's own culture, that is often completely independent of any secular custom or culture of the day (or any day, for that matter).

1Co_11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.


2Th_3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is such a thing as apostolic tradition, handed down by the apostles, recorded in the New Testament, that the churches of God are expected to follow.

[Esaias]

The reasons Paul gave were:

1. Because man is the image and glory of God, and woman is the glory of the man.
2. It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, and a woman praying uncovered is equivalent to being thus.
3. Because of the angels.
4. Nature teaches via long and short hair that a man ought to pray uncovered and a woman ought to pray covered.

None of those reasons were "local, cultural reasons." All of those reasons exist today: Man is still the head of the woman, and Christ is still the head of the man. The man is still the image and glory of God, the woman is still the glory of the man. The angels still exist. Nature hasn't been abolished.

Since the reasons still obtain, the command still obtains: men ought to be uncovered, and women covered, when praying or prophesying.





Doctrine is not determined by "what's applicable in today's society." Doctrine is "teaching". What the Bible teaches is determined by the Biblical text, it is what it is. If the conditions and circumstances for a particular teaching no longer obtain, then the underlying principle ought to be discerned and followed. For example, we can no longer bring an offering of an animal to the priest at the Temple, for the conditions do not exist. BUT the principle of a voluntary offering, a sacrifice of praise, certainly applies (and is actually stated in the NT).

In regard to head covering, it is not true the conditions do not exist (as I previously showed).

[Esaias]

1 Cor 11 contains Paul's instruction for women to be covered and men uncovered. He gave the following reasons why this should be done:

1. The covered man or uncovered woman dishonours their respective spiritual head by their lack of propriety in this matter.
2. A woman praying uncovered is "as if" she were shaved, and therefore she ought to either be shorn, or be covered.
3. The man should be uncovered because he is the image and glory of God.
4. The woman ought to be covered because she is the image and glory of the man.
5. Because of the angels she ought to have authority on her head (ie be covered).
6. Nature corroborates this truth by teaching us that long hair is a shame to a man but a glory to a woman.

He concludes by saying anyone who would contend against his teaching is in error as demonstrated by the fact the churches of God have no such custom (as would be contended for by the contentious man).

The reasons he gave are not local, cultural, or social reasons limited to "back then, over there." The reasons are in reference to Creation, the angels, godly order and propriety. Those conditions still prevail, therefore the reasons still prevail, therefore his teaching is still authoritative.

Women NOT covering their heads is a recent innovation of the last 100 or so years.

Nobody is "apostolic" unless they agree with and submit to the teachings of the apostles as authoritative (regardless of what the "sign over the church-door" says or what they claim.

There is only ONE saving faith: the one the apostles had and delivered to us. We ought to be truly apostolic, and follow their faith.

Anything else is delusion.

[Esaias]

To be consistent we just have to teach what Paul taught - if a man prays or prophesies having his head covered, or if a woman prays or prophesies having her head uncovered, they dishonour their heads. It is not "comely".

It doesn't matter what the local heathens did or did not do. It matters what the apostle taught.

Either we go by the bible or we tear out the instructions that "aren't culturally relevant". What else is just for "back then and not for today"? Breaking bread? Who breaks bread today?

Blessing a cup? Who does that these days? How about baptism? Lustrations and ritual washings were all the rage back then, for both Jews and pagans. Do we say baptism was just a cultural thing, but since these days it's not a cultural thing we can dispense with it?

Of course not. Why? BECAUSE IT IS COMMANDED IN SCRIPTURE. And so is the apostolic teaching on headcovering.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Paul is instructing Christian women to wear a headcovering when they pray or prophesy, and Christian men to not wear a headcovering when doing the same.

What about widows and single women and young girls?

Unmarried women can certainly wear a headcovering.

What about Nazarites?

Years ago, either here, or on nFCF, or on FCF, we had an interesting discussion about this. Brother Bassett and I were discussing the Nazarites in particular and it's relation to Paul's statement that if a man have long hair it is a shame to him. I have no idea where that discussion is located, but it was very enlightening, imo. By having uncut hair, a Nazarite became a 'gazing stock' so to say. Similarly to when people wore sackcloth and ashes, it was out of the ordinary. By taking a Nazarite vow, a man devoted himself to God and became an 'aberration' of sorts compared to the surrounding society, thus picturing that being devoted to God meant being out of the ordinary, an outcast of sorts. I really wish I knew where that discussion was, it delved into Bible, history, culture, etc.

Isn't this just a local, cultural thing?

1Co_11:16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Paul gave a teaching and an instruction about the proper way to do something. If anybody wanted to contend against his instruction, he had a final appeal, that neither him and his ministry team, nor any of the churches of God, had any such custom as would be contended for by the contentious one in opposition to Paul's teaching.

Jesus regularly opposed those who taught as doctrine the traditions and commandments of men. The apostolic churches followed Christ and His apostles. Christ led his apostles to teach, and their teachings were indeed the teachings of God. They laid down 'ordinances' or traditions that were to be followed, and which were independent of 'cultural customs' of the day, and which had the seal of God's approval. The Pharisees had their own traditions, but those traditions usually led people into ways to violate the written commandments of God. There is a Pharisaic halachah, and there is the halachah of Christ, delivered by his apostles.

Paul's instructions regarding headcovering during prayer and worship were contrary to the culture of the day. Among the Gentiles, some men and women both practiced covering, whereas some practiced uncovered prayer and worship. And some practiced a divided custom, where men and women had opposite practices (usually men being covered and women being uncovered). Jewish women were covered at all times anyway, and usually would not be allowed to offer prayer or to prophesy (sing?) in the synagogue. So again, Paul's teachings were contrary to EVERYBODY'S 'cultural customs'.

The church has it's own customs, it's own culture, that is often completely independent of any secular custom or culture of the day (or any day, for that matter).

1Co_11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.


2Th_3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

There is such a thing as apostolic tradition, handed down by the apostles, recorded in the New Testament, that the churches of God are expected to follow.

Ok I know you advocate for this head covering and are pretty supportive of the cutting of hair. (Or at least have been playing devil's advocate for 15+ pages about it)

But what do you do with this :what does 1 Corinthians 11:15 say the covering is? "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering."
Because once again the word translated "for" comes from the Greek Word "anti" or "ἀντί". Meaning "for, instead of, in place of (something)."

This shoots a hole in the boat of this theory plus listen to this.

http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=277

Listen to the hole thing he says about hair,and the covering.

[Esaias]

Those were all previous posts of mine on various threads about the issue of "contemporary culture and 1 Cor 11". The following is a previous post of mine on foot washing, but it deals with the larger subject of "culture" and the apostolic faith and practice:




Now, onto the other objection, which is much more thoughtful and sincere, namely that the meaning of the act of footwashing in the ANE was understood by the people of the day without needing 'a history lesson', and therefore was to be observed in that day, but today, the meaning of the act of footwashing is not apparent without teaching concerning it's purpose and application and symbolism and meaning etc.

Several remarks:

1. The significance of the Lord's Supper would have been readily apparent to any Jew, but to the average Gentile it would not have been. The 'cup of blessing' had (and has) a specific significance in Judaism. However, the Lord's Supper is still to be observed, and is often accompanied by teaching to explain it's meaning and significance. Yet, because of these things, we do not do away with the Lord's Supper.

2. The meaning of baptism was readily apparent to the Jews of John's and Jesus' day, yet no Gentile would have understood it except as some peculiar Jewish 'cleansing ritual'. Thus, it would have to be explained to Gentiles. Furthermore, the significance of baptism as a symbol of burial, and of baptism INTO Christ, is not readily seen by all from the mere outward act of baptism, but must be explained. Hence, as several have posted on the 'baptism' poll, the meaning of baptism is often not fully understood by those who are being baptised until later, AFTER MUCH TEACHING. Yet we do not do away with the act of baptism because of the need for teaching concerning it's significance.

3. Jesus had to teach the disciples about what he was doing when he washed their feet. He asked them, 'Know ye what I have done?' From Peter's response to the Lord's initial declared intent to wash his feet, it is obvious that even the disciples did not understand the significance of what their Lord was doing. Yet he did it anyway. And further commanded them to do likewise. And further commanded them to teach all converts to do likewise.

4. The Great Commission is for the disciples to 'disciple the nations', to make disciples, to instruct them. Thus, teaching is assumed and implied and part of the purpose of ministry. To suggest foot washing requires teaching and therefore may be dispensed with it is to deny the fundamental core mission statement of the church, which is to TEACH THE NATIONS.

5. The Great Commission includes the command to teach all converts to observe all things whatsoever Jesus commanded his disciples. He commanded his disciples to wash one another's feet. Therefore, the Great Commission includes the command for the disciples to teach converts about foot washing, it's significance, and to observe to DO IT.

So we see that the objection that foot washing, to have meaning to people today, requires teaching and therefore may be dispensed with, is absurd, illogical, irrational, unreasonable, and unscriptural.

Many things require teaching. Jesus did not establish doctrine and practices for the church simply because they were 'culturally significant in that day only'. There are two cultures - the world's, and the church's. The church has it's own culture, by Divine appointment, dependent upon the will and command of God and the example of Christ and his apostles, recorded in the New Testament.

Humanism, with its relativistic view of things, is always looking to 'modify' the plain commands of the Bible, claiming God was not smart enough to know that 'times change'. Modernistic humanism attempts to 'make God current', as though there is a need for a Christianity v. 2.0 or something.

The church is an ancient institution. Her 'customs' and 'ordinances' are ancient as well. Modern man's desire to abandon a connection with the past is part of the reason we don't see the power of the ancient church manifesting today like we should.

I conclude with a thought:

Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. (Jeremiah 6:16)

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

Ok I know you advocate for this head covering and are pretty supportive of the cutting of hair. (Or at least have been playing devil's advocate for 15+ pages about it)

You obviously have not read my posts carefully, but have jumped to unfounded conclusions about what I believe concerning "cutting of hair". So I do not wish to waste time posting things to you that are similarly going to be glossed over and not paid attention to.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You obviously have not read my posts carefully, but have jumped to unfounded conclusions about what I believe concerning "cutting of hair". So I do not wish to waste time posting things to you that are similarly going to be glossed over and not paid attention to.

I'm just going over what you have been saying the last 15+ pages, but I haven't read these. What do you do with verse 15 though.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by 1ofthechosen

I'm just going over what you have been saying the last 15+ pages, but I haven't read these. What do you do with verse 15 though.

You go over those pages again, paying closer attention.