Holiness Is Still Important

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by proudfather

I did not find your post offensive. The post before yours was a little more forceful and struck me as rude.

Oh, ok. Just checking.

In response to your question, let's examine the words more closely:

The word "cover" in Verses 4-7 = "Katakalupto" - it means = "to veil, wholly cover"

The word cover in VS 15 = "Peribolaion" - it means = "to throw around" - also: "veil or mantle"

Katakalupto is a derivative of the root work "Kata" a preposition meaning = "down from, to cover or hide"

I agree totally so far.

Zondervan Bible Dictionary noted that in the N.T., hair was a major distinguishing factor of the sexes.

PAUL WAS ANSWERING the CORINTH CUSTOM => He was not suggesting a break from that custom. In Corinth, to be without a veil would be a shame, therefore, if you’re not wearing one, then you might as well cut your hair also. (because in Corinth it would have the same effect)

Agreed. It was speaking of a veil.

SHAVEN: "to cut near the surface" make bare, smooth
SHORN: "to cut with shears" to remove by cutting

Study the issue of short hair in the old testament and you will find that on a woman, it was considered shameful.

Agreed. but this is speaking about entirely removing the hair or entirely removing it as much as possible. It was not talking about trimming it or suchlike. To shear a sheep meant to cut it off as close as possible to the flesh, for example.

Judgment begins at God’s house... (conversion) This issue is not "how long" her hair is, but that she simply stop cutting it.

Now this is where I believe you get into error. It was not cutting it, but making it short. Long means long and short mean short. It is not talking about not cutting it at all.

The overall issue is really a veil anyway. Not hair. Why is hair mentioned? Paul listed several arguments as to what would support a woman wearing a veil in prayer or prophesying. If it was hair, he would not make it at times such as when veils could be removed or worn. Paul would have simply said a woman should be covered at all times if it was hair. You cannot put on and remove hair.

So it is not even about hair. But amongst all the arguments he listed, he finally ended with NATURE. NATURE implies the covering he spoke about was unnatural, a veil. But NATURE'S support argument was hair. Even long hair better suits her a woman than a man.

In I Cor 11, the issue was never if a woman should have long hair. (that was a given) It was if Corinthian women had to wear a 2nd covering.

Hope this helps.

You are correct in your last phrase, however, thsi is not saying a woman cannot cut her hair the least bit.

And this is where my point came in.

If HAVE LONG HAIR in verse 14 is to remain with the same definition it has in verse 15, then a man cannot have "A" while a woman must have "A". "A" must be consistent in definition. Paul did not say it is a shame for a man to have "A", but if a woman has "B" it is a glory to her. HAVE LONG HAIR means the same thing for a man that it means for a woman.

That being the case, if LONG = UNCUT then a man does not "have long hair" if it is three feet down his back and he keeps it trimmed. It is not UNCUT.

See my point?