Re: Uncut Hair
 

25 million Greek speaking Christians in the world, and yet only a narrow sliver of non Greek speaking Americans in the mid 1900's figured out that the passage is about uncut hair.

Over 1,800 years of Greek translation and near universal practice, all figured out by them there Pentecostals.

The New Living Translation has a good rendering:

I Corinthians 11:4-15
4 A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. 5 But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. 6 Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering.
7 A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory. 8 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. 9 And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. 10 For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? 14 Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? 15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.

A decent paraphrase would be:

“Every man while praying or prophesying having a shawl, or head covering, hanging down over his head – dishonors his head, which is Christ. But every woman while praying or prophesying, with her head uncovered dishonors her head, her husband. For this would be one and the same thing as if she had her head shaved. For assuming that a woman’s head or hair is uncovered, let her also cut her hair close. Since it is dishonorable for a woman to be shaven or her hair cropped close, let her put a shawl over her head (or a scarf).
“For indeed a male individual is morally obligated not to cover his head in that manner, since he is so constituted as to be the derived image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For a man is not out of the woman, as a source, but the woman is out of the man. Assuredly, the man was not created for the sake of the woman, but a woman was created for the sake of the man. On this account the woman is under moral obligation to be having a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
“Nevertheless, man is not complete apart from a woman in the Lord. For even as the woman came out of the man, as a source, does also the man owe his existence to the intermediate agency of the woman. But all things are out of God as a source. Come to a decision among yourselves. Is it seemly or fitting for a woman to be engaged in prayer to God, not wearing the shawl hanging down over her head? Does not the innate sense of propriety itself based upon the objective difference in the constitution of things (the difference between the male and the female) teach you that indeed if a man allows his hair to grow long it is a disgrace to him? But if a woman allows her hair to grow long it is her glory because her head of hair has been given to her for a permanent covering (answering in character to, but not a substitute for a shawl).

What most non Greek speaking people fail to see is that verses 13 through 15 are a supplemental polemic supporting his theme by example, NOT a summary statement.

Re: Uncut Hair
 

Re: Uncut Hair
 

*For the Greekified on this forum:

Attachment 6138

Re: Uncut Hair
 

We have nearly 2,000 years of commentary and cultural application on this topic. One can claim that some obscure 20th century interpretation of the text is actual truth, but that doesn't make it so.

We learn several key things in I Corinthians 11:

- A man is not to pray or prophesy with anything hanging down over or covering his head.

- Any woman praying or prophesying with her head unveiled or uncovered dishonors her husband because it is immodest and is the same as if she were sheered or shaven bald like an unfaithful woman.

- Wearing the veil is an outward modesty showing that a woman is submitted to her husband

- This properly places the woman under her husbands authority (whose head is Christ).

- The submission of a woman to her husband doesn’t mean that he is superior to her, but rather both need each other.

- Just as the woman is man's glory, a woman’s hair is her glory. Therefore both the woman and her hair should be covered.

- As a fitting example, even nature testifies that a woman should be veiled.

- A woman’s hair is meant to be wrapped and covered.

- This was a custom observed and obeyed without contention

Much commentary has been written about this down through the centuries. We only see a major departure from wearing head coverings among Bible believing Christians in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Here's some commentary to consider:

Hermas (AD 150)
"A virgin meets me, adorned as if she were proceeding from the bridal chamber...her head was covered by a hood."

Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered. For it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men."

"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].

Tertullian (AD 198)
"Why do you uncover before God what you cover before men Will you be more modest in public than in Church Be veiled virgin."

"How severe a chastisement will they likewise deserve, who during the psalms and at every mention of God remain uncovered."

John Chrysostom (340-407 a.d.)
"Their women used to pray and prophesy unveiled and with their head bare." Especially to the point of a woman needing a separate head covering other than her long hair (cf. 1 Cor. 11:15) is the following remark: "' And if it be given her for a covering,' say you, 'wherefore need she add another covering' That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection. For that thou oughtest to be covered nature herself by anticipation enacted a law. Add now, I pray, thine own part also, that thou mayest not seem to subvert the very laws of nature; a proof of most insolent rashness, to buffet not only with us, but with nature also."

"It follows that being covered is a mark of subjection and authority. For it induces her to look down and be ashamed and preserve entire her proper virtue. For the virtue and honor of the governed is to abide in his obedience." (Chrysostom, Homily XXVI. On The Veiling Of Women.)

Apostolic Constitutions (AD 390)
"When you are in the streets, cover your head. For by such a covering, you will avoid being viewed by idle persons."

Jerome (345-429 a.d.)
".... not that afterwards they go about with heads uncovered in defiance of the apostles command" [1 Corinthians 11:5]."

Augustine (354-430 a.d.)
"'Every man praying or prophesying with veiled head shameth his head;' and, 'A man ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory of God.'"Now if it is true of a man that he is not to veil his head, then the opposite is true of a woman, that she is to veil her head. "We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme....that is, in the image of God, ...especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: '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.'" Augustine - (Cited in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Schaff, ed. vol. 3, 523):

AD 800
"It is likely that headgear for women was becoming more common by the seventh century. It seems that Christian morality (based on St Paul's edicts) was influential in this respect. By the eighth century it seems that headcoverings were worn by all women. It seems that a close fitting cap was worn by most women (perhaps similar to the slightly later caps from York and Dublin), which sometimes left the hair at the forehead and temples visible." (Angelcynn, Clothing and Appearance of the Early Christian Anglo-Saxons (c. 600-800 A.D.)

John Calvin (1509-1564)
"So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature.So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."

"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)

Henry Alford (1810-1871)
"[1 Corinthians 11] 2-16. The law of subjection of the woman to the man (2-12), and natural decency itself (13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies."

And the list goes on...and on...and on.

Paul wasn’t talking about hair. He was talking about the use of the veil, a first century standard of modesty. Most scholars see this teaching as an issue of “modesty” that Paul was dealing with in relation to first century culture that isn’t applicable today in our culture. Today, the issue might be clothing that is too tight or revealing. It's the same thing. If a woman wears clothing that is too tight or revealing, she dishonors her "head" (her husband) just like those who were refusing to wear a veil in the first century church of Corinth.

That's my understanding.

Re: Uncut Hair
 

So, is the "covering" Paul was talking about a woman's long uncut hair, or is it an actual head covering? Because, I'd like to expand upon this if possible. Here's my understanding, provided as commentary to the text:

1 Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.

Paul desires that they be imitators of himself as he follows the Lord.

2Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.

Paul commends them for remembering his needs and maintaining the traditions (or ordinances) he taught to them.

3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Here Paul is bringing up the primary issue, headship. Paul teaches the order of headship: Christ, husband, and then wife.

4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

Here Paul states that if any man prays with his head covered or veiled (as the Jews do according to tradition) he dishonors his “head” (meaning Jesus Christ).

5but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

But every wife who prays or prophesies without her veil dishonors her “head” (or husband). This is because it is as shameful AS IF her head were shaven (punishment of public humiliation given to immoral women).

6For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

If a wife will not wear her veil, then she should cut her hair short (as a form of self inflicted humiliation). But since it is so disgraceful to be put to public shame by having her hair shorn, she should simply wear her veil. The implication here is that a woman can make the immediate adjustment of covering her head. This is only true if this is a veil. If the covering were her hair, her hair would be cut. If "covered" means uncut, she couldn't ever be "covered" again, for once cut, hair is cut.

7For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.

A man shouldn’t cover his head as a woman, since the man is the very image and glory of God, and by being uncovered, he reveals Christ's glory above the Old Covenant. However, a wife is her husband’s glory (by bringing honor to him).

8For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.

Order of creation: Woman was made from man.

9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.

Order of purpose: Man wasn’t created for the woman, but rather woman was created to be a mate and companion for man.

10That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Thus a woman’s modesty through the wearing of the veil serves as a symbol of her husband’s authority over her. The term “because of the angels” is widely debated. However, we know that a modestly adorned Christian woman prevents men from being influenced by seductive spirits (fallen angels) that would entice him to lust and adultery. In addition, it was commonly believed that angels attended human worship and any immodesty or impropriety was insulting and shameful to them.

11Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;

Mutual need: Both the husband and his wife need each other.

12for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.

Neither is greater than the other in value because men are born from women and this is by God’s design.

13Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?

Paul asks the Corinthians to determine for themselves if a woman should pray to God while immodestly uncovered.

14Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Paul draws an example from nature to strengthen his argument that a woman should wear a head covering. Here, Paul's supplementary polemic argues from nature that if a man wears long effeminate hair it is disgraceful. However, if a woman has long hair, it is considered beautiful and her glory. For long hair was given her by nature as a covering. And so nature and practice agree. A woman should be covered.

16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

Some would say that Paul is illustrating that while head covering was customary for the Corinthians, it isn't a church wide custom. Thus there is no need for contention on the matter.

In Summary:

-Obviously the women weren't in submission, so Paul explains headship.

-What was the problem? They refusing to wear their veils, thereby disobeying and dishonoring their husbands.

-Paul tells them to be covered.

-Paul explains why headship exists.

-Paul explains that even nature agrees because it covered a woman with long hair.

-Paul illustrates long hair is shameful on a man but is a woman's beauty, or glory.

-Some say that Paul indicates that having women wear head coverings was proper for the Corinthians, but that this isn't a mandated church wide practice.

It's all right there and... and it is still practiced in old world churches in that culture today, and has been for almost two thousand years.

Re: Uncut Hair
 

Can you post the scriptures Paul is referring to?

Re: Uncut Hair
 

And that helps no one. LOL! Can you give me a link with the word in Greek for uncut and the definition online, please? Thanks.

Re: Uncut Hair
 

I thought it was pretty nifty. :thumbsup

Re: Uncut Hair
 

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. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 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 is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12)

He is clearly referring to Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7-8, Genesis 2:18-25, and Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:20.

Interesting note on the idea of "the woman is the glory of the man": A verse in Isaiah describes the crafting of idols thus:

The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
(Isaiah 44:13)

The Targum on that verse renders the bolded portion as "according to the praise of a woman". Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (an 11th century commentator on the Targum) says of this portion "This is a woman, who is the glory of her husband." Thus, it was apparently a common idea in Judaism that the woman was understood to be "the glory of the man", that is to say, women were considered something that adorned their husbands with praise and beauty. Now, whether Jarchi got the idea from Paul and later Christians, or whether Jarchi's comment reflects an independent stream of thought, is hard to say. But in any case Paul certainly maintained that the woman is the glory of the man.

Re: Uncut Hair
 

If we look at Paul's argumentation, we can see he gives the following reasons for his teaching concerning men and women and the covering or uncovering of their heads:

1. Headship as a metaphor for authority. verse 3
2. Covering or uncovering demonstrates dishonour to one's head/authority (a double entendre). verses 4-5
3. An uncovered woman (praying or prophesying) is equivalent to being shorn or shaven. verses 5-6
4. The issue of reflective glory. verse 7
5. The order of origin/creation. verse 8
6. The purpose of their respective creations. verse 9
7. The issue of the angels. verse 10
8. The lesson from nature concerning long hair. verses 13-15
9. The universal custom of the apostles. verse 16
10. The universal custom of the churches of God. verse 16

Even if one were to argue "the churches of God no longer have a universal custom on this issue, therefore reason 10 is no longer valid", and "the apostles are all dead, so reason 9 is no longer valid", and even if one were to argue that "nature's lesson" is ambiguous (and thus plainly declare that Paul was misusing nature as a support for his teaching!), and even if one were to add the claim that a woman being shorn or shaven is no longer dishonourable or a shame, the other reasons still remain: Man is the glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man, man was created first and the woman was created for the man, and there are still angels. Since each of those things were given as reasons supporting his instructions about what ought to be done, and since those reasons still clearly and unarguably remain true and valid, then it follows that his instructions remain true and valid.

In other words, this is not a "cultural issue" relative to Corinth in the first century, or to the greater Roman world in the first century, alone. Rather, it is a collection of timeless and universal truths calling for men and women to modify their behaviour in worship accordingly, as per the apostle's instructions. His instructions are just as valid (and thus binding) today upon all Christians everywhere as they were in Corinth in the first century.