Submission? Or Power and Control?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by houston

But do you believe that?

I believe what the Bible says. It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, her not having her head covered is the same as being shorn or shaved, if she won't be covered then let her be shorn, otherwise, let her be covered.

Long hair on a woman is a glory to her (looks good on her) and that is a lesson from nature that women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe what the Bible says. It is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaved, her not having her head covered is the same as being shorn or shaved, if she won't be covered then let her be shorn, otherwise, let her be covered.

Long hair on a woman is a glory to her (looks good on her) and that is a lesson from nature that women ought to be covered when praying or prophesying.

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off? There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have. what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers, some time back, teaching about the passage not being about a woman needing to have long hair. I was kind of surprised that the audience didn't respond. It seemed they weren't sure what they thought about what she said. She moved on. lol! Just thought that was interesting.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off? There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have. what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers, some time back, teaching about the passage not being about a woman needing to have long hair. I was kind of surprised that the audience didn't respond. It seemed they weren't sure what they thought about what she said. She moved on. lol! Just thought that was interesting.

If a woman be not covered-let her also be shorn.........shorn is like a military haircut. Shaved is completely removed.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by ILG

If a woman be not covered-let her also be shorn.........shorn is like a military haircut. Shaved is completely removed.

Agreed!

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Would the passage be suggesting that if she cuts her hair and wears it short like a man, she might as well cut her hair off?

No. He is talking about being covered or not, and then says being uncovered is the same as being shaven.

There is a strong emphasis on the man having short hair which is something he doesn't want the woman to have.

Out of 16 verses in his teaching, Paul only mentions a man's hair once, saying nature teaches us long hair on a man is no good. Therefore, there is NOT a "strong emphasis" on men having short hair. In fact, there is no "strong emphasis" on hair at all except that a woman praying uncovered is as spiritually shameful as a woman having her hair shaved or shorn off is naturally shameful.

what I am trying to say is I kind of think that as long as a woman's hair isn't cut short like a man, it would be long. History has always defined shoulder length hair as long.

Historically, women did not cut or trim their hair at all, except for high society "fashionable" types in the medieval-renaissance period who took to shaving their foreheads and dyeing their hair red, blue, green, purple, etc.

I remember listening to Joyce Meyers,

I'm sorry. I try to forget ever having heard her "teaching".

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

No. He is talking about being covered or not, and then says being uncovered is the same as being shaven.

Agree that the passage is saying this.

Out of 16 verses in his teaching, Paul only mentions a man's hair once, saying nature teaches us long hair on a man is no good. Therefore, there is NOT a "strong emphasis" on men having short hair. In fact, there is no "strong emphasis" on hair at all except that a woman praying uncovered is as spiritually shameful as a woman having her hair shaved or shorn off is naturally shameful.

More than "no good" - "Shame" is a bit more colorful, meaning as you know, "dishonour, ignominy/public shame or disgrace, disgrace". A shame in the view of the public is pretty strong, IMO.

To bring the man in as an example on hair, after verses 3-12 in I Cor. 11, seems a bit on the side of strong emphasis. Or, at least, a big deal, IMO.

Historically, women did not cut or trim their hair at all, except for high society "fashionable" types in the medieval-renaissance period who took to shaving their foreheads and dyeing their hair red, blue, green, purple, etc.

I think they trimmed it, at least around the face, bangs, etc., from what I have seen, leaving the back long.

Ran into a cute, elderly woman coming out of the grocery store when my daughter was around 7 years old. She said, "Oh, she is so pretty. You know, we used to wear dresses and wore our hair long when I was a youngster. My children made me cut mine because it is too hard to take care of." Thought that was interesting.

I'm sorry. I try to forget ever having heard her "teaching".

I don't normally ever listen to her, just happened to have viewed that session for some reason. Probably out of curiosity. I will say that I read her book, "7 Things that Steal Your Joy" and have never felt such peace at the end of any book I have ever read, besides the Bible, of course. That isn't an endorsement, just an observation. I was rather surprised by that.