"For This Cause" A Discussion About Angelic Hair
 

1 Corinthians 11

7For 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.

8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.

9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

What does the "for this cause" mean? What is it referring to?

MMMmmmm....

Angel Hair Pasta....

*drool*

http://www.all-creatures.org/recipes...-angelhair.jpg

:groan

Here we go again..........

I have always wondered about the "because of the angels" portion of this scripture...

But the "For this cause", IMO, is in reference to the previous scripture where it states "Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man."

It would be treated as would other similar references such as nevertheless, therefore etc which would refer BACK rather than forward.

Three questions

1. Does "for this cause" refer to the fallen angels?

2. Does a woman's cut hair identify her as rebellious to her husband and God?

3. Does the woman join league with the enemy against her husband when she cuts it? After all, the serpent's goal was to steal earthly dominion from the man.

This is obviously a widely debated topic, and commentators have varying opinions about it.

Three key words in this passage are angels, covering, and glory.

The first place in the Scripture where we find those three elements in conjunction is the Ark of the Covenant.

Every time the covering (mercy seat) was removed, the angels that stood at either end were displaced, and the Glory that dwelt between them was also displaced...and bad things happened.

I do not believe for a minute that there are any special "hair angels" like the mockers like to assert that Apostolics believe.

I do, however, believe it is reasonable to say that there is a special blessing and perhaps angelic protection afforded to those who walk in obedience to the Scripture. And I believe the Scripture teached for ladies to have uncut hair.

Since the chapter in question is dealing with order of creation, and submission, it is possible that the Apostle was making reference to the example of angels who fell when they would not remain in submission to their nead.

I don't believe this is the intent of most women who cut their hair.

A woman who has been taught against cutting her hair generally does it out of rebellion.

But most women just do it for style or convenience otherwise.

I have noticed that when an Apostolic woman backslides, one of the first things she usually does is cut her hair.

Adam Clarke's commentary says this is one of the modt debated and misunderstood passages in the Word. He would only give opinions on it. LOL

Great Post, Friend. I never considered the ark of the covenant.

hmmmm

There is nothing wrong with pointing out error in what is being taught, even if someone believes in the "hair doctrine". Many who believe in the hair doctrine do not believe in special protection which IS being taught.

I have noticed this also. . .

But is that rebellion?

It may be that she no longer identifies with Apostolic doctrine. It may have nothing to do with her relationship with her hubby. The million dollar question is does her intent matter? Is 1 Corinthians 11 a biblical imperative, or merely a suggestion?

I believe special protection is afforded through obedience.

There are a lot things that require obedience; hair is just one.

Very good point, PP. It is not necessarily rebellion, but interpreted as such by some.

Totally agree.

Obedience always brings reward.

Disobedience brings spiritual separation and a loss of protection.

It may not be rebellion with intent.

However, it is a trespass. Trespass equates to disobedience. Disobedience is rebellion.

Tough issue.

I said "generally."

If she has once believed it and no longer does, that would be deception, which often has its roots in rebellion or offense.

Since I don't believe the Bible teaches uncut hair, I don't think it is even a trespass.

If the woman has once belived it and then cuts her hair, it is one of two things: rebellion or deception.

Rebellion if she still believes but cuts it anyway, and deception if she has convinced herself or allowed others to convince her it is no longer truth.

There are four major interpetations of this verse I have heard among Apostolic teachers and here they are:
1. it means it is because the angels of the Lord surround us daily and protect us so out of honor to them it is worn.
2. it identifies with the evil angels that fell in rebellion thus making a negative statement.
3. the angels here are the ministry thus worn showing submission to the ministry.
4. the angels covered the mercy seat and are seen as guardians of God's glory thus it is worn to cover man's glory(the woman) thus not seen as to interpose the glory of man into the presence of God where the angels are the guardians.

Or, those who believe it and teach it to begin with are decieved and when someone does no longer believe it they are delivered from deception. :bubble

True.

From your deceived perspective, yes.:bubble

To me, the only valid conclusion one can reach is that "for this cause" refers to the fallen angels, and that a woman identifies with their rebellion by dishonoring her husband, and her God, through cut hair.

Spiritual consequences based on an outward sign is not some new thing.

When the angel of death passed through the land of Egypt, the houses covered by blood on the doorposts were spared.

The mark of obedience was the visible protection that identified their obedience.

It dishonors God and her husband.

Paul said it was a shame.

I feel it identifies one with our enemy.

Same thing with the serpent in the wilderness. A physical emblem was used to bring protection. The emblem itself was not powerful. Their obedience was.

Exactly.

Or we could ask Moses about the time God met him in the way and sought to kill him--when he was on his way to Egypt to do God's bidding.

The reason?

He neglected to comply in an area of outward obedience--circumcision.

I'm feeling more comfortable with my position that this passage refers to the rebellion of fallen angels. This take is quite different than the RR idea.

It doesn't say "uncut" anywhere....it says long. I believe that what is being discussed here as applying to women with cut hair in reality applies to women with intentionally (not medically) shorn (Paul had his head shorn in Cenchrea and it was not "trimmed") or shaven hair.

That has been the way I have leaned, for the most part.

I do not agree with some of RR's conclusions.

With that said, however, I want to stress that she is often misrepresented by her critics.

Oh no!! Women who cut their hair are going to get killed!!!! Gasp!!!! Good grief. Talk about scare tactics.

Typical misrepresentation of what I said.

The principle here is that disobedience brings consequences.

Principles? Whats that?

It's remarkable the lengths folks will go to question biblical authority. Some things are just so. Why did God choose tongues, create man, mosquitos and all sorts of other unanswerable questions.

Why does God require a distinction between sexes? Why did Paul give us 1 Ccorinthians 11? I don't know if some things are answerable. There is a lot to be said for simple obedience to the Word.

Long hair, yes. Uncut hair, no. Otherwise a man can have hair three feet down his back and it still be short since he trims it.

But I do agree with Coonskinner's thoughts on the ark and the cherubims, although the idea of cherubims being "angels" is debatable. The cherubims are the four beasts in Rev 5 and they claim they were redeemed from every tribe and nation of men. Angels are not redeemed.

The POWER on the woman's head is the authority of her husband, as her "head" is her personal authority. Since the physical head represents authority, seeing one's MIND is located in one's actual head, the woman's covering on her actual physical head speaks of this submission, indicating that with her husband, she covers her head since he is her head. There is only ONE HEAD on a body. And if a woman is one flesh with her husband, and God made him her head, she indicates that by covering her head. She hides her physical head, as it were, to indicate her husband is her authroity, while his head remains uncovered. A visual message. The important thing si the submission in her spirit.

I have seen women who covered their heads in whatever way they think this chapter teaches -- some hair and some a veil or hat -- but were downright rebellious and unsubmissive to their husbands. The issue is ONLY A SYMBOL. Just as the SYMBOL of bread and wine in the same chapter in communion. But the symbol is still strongly taught here, at any rate. God is very concerned over SOME symbols even now.

Again, I propose this is not hair but a veil. However, in our culture veils do not mean that in the eyes of the people, so the veiling issue is moot in and of itself today.

It is not anointing power in the context, but the power of her husband's authority. The verse is saying she as authority OVER HER. Not magical power exisiting on her physical head.

BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS could mean a few different things, while the passage does not specify which. It could mean the angels are given testimony by the woman that SHE SUBMITS, whereas SOME angels rebelled and fell.

Or it could mean that the angels who are ministering spirits sent to minister and SERVE we who are heirs of salvation cannot properly do their work with us if we are not in submission. If angels SERVE, how can they work with people who do not SUBMIT and SERVE as well, as in the role of a woman obeying her husband?

The guys who used to paddle me in the office when I got in fights at school?

I personally believe a person's interpretation of I Corinthians 11 serves as a pretty accurate litmus test of how they view the authority of Scripture.

Are they looking for loopholes and minimalist living, or do they want to please God?

I think the idea that a woman MUST OBEY this chapter and cover her head in the way she genuinely feels it is meant to be covered -- again, some hair, others veiling or hat -- without the understanding that it is a symbol of submission and she needs to first submit to her husband makes the issue moot entirely for her. It seems people veer away from the truth when they stress the importance to OBEY 1 COR 11, instead of seeing the symbol of submission and ensuring THAT is in order before stressing the act of covering the head in and of itself. Coveirng the head is part and parcel with the SUBMISSION it represents. And I have to admit I hear more "COVER YOUR HEAD, WOMEN" then I do "Ensure you submit to your husband as he gives honour and love to you" which is all represents.

It's like forgetting the whole point of the submission issue to her husband, when just the demand to WEAR THE COVERING is promoted. It has come to the day when people do not consider if the submission is there for the covering action to match it, but just whether or not the covering action is present. The outward display has become more important than the submission, and whereas the submission in question in the chapter IS ACTUALLY for a woman to SUBMIT to her husband, it has CHANGED to become a submission to the demand of the preacher to wear the covering. Both acts of submission are of course important, but nothing is said about the submission ot her husband which is the whole point, in contrast to submission to the preacher.

If it's actual disobedience, sure. But God doesn't play games where he puts something so important in an obscure place without really saying what he means and then says "I'm going to get you for that!" When something is sin, God is plain.

I see the value of what you are saying. We seem to excel with rules, but struggle with principles sometimes.