Hair and Nature?

[Praxeas]

This wasn't supposed to have been a standards thread. I wanted to explore "nature" in regards to the topic of 1Cor, veils, hair and coverings.

Daniel Wallace, who is a Trinitarian and by no means an Ultra Conservative, agrees exegetically as far as the Greek goes that Paul is saying a woman is to have something on her head. He just does not agree it has to be long hair, it could be long hair but he is not convinced of that it seems. He is one of the worlds foremost greek experts

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This wasn't supposed to have been a standards thread. I wanted to explore "nature" in regards to the topic of 1Cor, veils, hair and coverings.

Daniel Wallace, who is a Trinitarian and by no means an Ultra Conservative, agrees exegetically as far as the Greek goes that Paul is saying a woman is to have something on her head. He just does not agree it has to be long hair, it could be long hair but he is not convinced of that it seems. He is one of the worlds foremost greek experts

Are you saying that the term "nature" would actually be conveying the deeper meaning that a veil, or head covering for women is as necessary even as nature provides natural hair is to cover the head?

I have thought for a long time, after studying 1 Cor. 11, (granted with my limited knowledge and abilities), that hair (for the most part) is a covering that you can't take on and off. It does seem that Paul was referencing, at least concerning a woman prophesying, that the covering was something to put on and off.

I think Daniel Wallace is probably quite correct, although I haven't heard out what he has to say about it, but the fact remains you can't take your hair on and off, unless you are wearing a wig, of course.

However, most believe the veiling, or head covering was a symbol of submission in their culture, and our culture today is most different from what the cultural rules were in that era of time.

Even the head coverings worn by the strictest Amish and Mennonite sects today would not be what the women wore 2000 years ago. From all the pictures and drawings I've seen of the cultural dress of that time period, most women were almost completely veiled, more similar to the women of India, and other Asian countries than any other head coverings worn in our culture today.

So, if then the veiling issue is really what you are trying to pinpoint here, then the bigger question remains... was it simply a cultural thing that Paul was teaching, or a greater spiritual reality?

It seems most likely that this was a spiritual reality of submission, headship, and distinction of gender that was the root of why Paul was teaching this, and not simply to install a cultural tradition as being salvational.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Are you saying that the term "nature" would actually be conveying the deeper meaning that a veil, or head covering for women is as necessary even as nature provides natural hair is to cover the head?

I have thought for a long time, after studying 1 Cor. 11, (granted with my limited knowledge and abilities), that hair (for the most part) is a covering that you can't take on and off. It does seem that Paul was referencing, at least concerning a woman prophesying, that the covering was something to put on and off.

I think Daniel Wallace is probably quite correct, although I haven't heard out what he has to say about it, but the fact remains you can't take your hair on and off, unless you are wearing a wig, of course.

However, most believe the veiling, or head covering was a symbol of submission in their culture, and our culture today is most different from what the cultural rules were in that era of time.

Even the head coverings worn by the strictest Amish and Mennonite sects today would not be what the women wore 2000 years ago. From all the pictures and drawings I've seen of the cultural dress of that time period, most women were almost completely veiled, more similar to the women of India, and other Asian countries than any other head coverings worn in our culture today.

So, if then the veiling issue is really what you are trying to pinpoint here, then the bigger question remains... was it simply a cultural thing that Paul was teaching, or a greater spiritual reality?

It seems most likely that this was a spiritual reality of submission, headship, and distinction of gender that was the root of why Paul was teaching this, and not simply to install a cultural tradition as being salvational.

Im saying that if the NET bible commentary is correct, this entire passage can't be dismissed as merely "cultural"

[votivesoul]

If we are going to talk nature and the design of God, in regards to hair or anything else, we are talking teleology (the study of design and purpose in nature), from the Greek word teleios, the word most commonly translated as perfect in the New Testament.

So then, the question becomes, it is teleologically correct to say a man's perfection in Christ (which means completion, i.e. not needing anything to be added/the achievement of the intended goal) is in part dependent upon him having short hair?

Or vice versa for women? A woman's perfection in Christ (as the final goal for which she was purposefully created) is in part dependent upon her having long hair?

If these are the right questions to ask, then the right answers can be discovered. Because now, if this is the way God intends for a man and a woman to be, that is, he designed and purposed this to be so (while still giving us the liberty of will to acquiesce or rebel), then it isn't about standards and outward conformity, or even gender distinctions so much as it is about getting to a certain place in Christ, one of spiritual as well as physical wholeness, where nothing needs to be added to our character or identity in this particular area (even as we may lack in other places).

Short hair on a man then becomes how he achieves mature perfection. It is part of his ability to reach the end goal for which he was created: to be the image and glory of God.

Long hair on a woman then becomes how she achieves mature perfection. It is part of her ability to reach the end goal for which she was created: to be the image and glory of man.

[justlookin]

The question still isn't answered though. How short is short according to nature and how long is long according to nature?

[KeptByTheWord]

I have always thought that when Paul was referring to "nature" that he was of course referencing the fact that all humans have hair, and that hair can be used as a gender distinction.

He begins the chapter discussing headship, so it seems reasonable, that he first presented the issue: Headship/submission, and then began to illustrate his point by using hair as an illustration that even "nature itself" shows us that all humans have hair, and that gender distinction can be understood in this way, and that headship is also to be understood as unchangeable, even as the fact that hair can be used as a gender distinction. It seems that he is also referencing a second covering , but Paul never really comes out and says so clearly.

For that reason, this is a clouded, muddy group of verses, because Paul never clearly, and succinctly says exactly what he was trying to say. Therefore, it leaves this passage open to much speculation and discussion, and personal interpretation.

If Paul would have said this: "Even as the Lord created women to have long hair, they also must cover themselves with a veil when prophesying to symbolize headship and authority." .... or something like that... but he doesn't.

Therefore, the whole passage remains very vague, and seems to reference something culturally, but that reference is not clear.

This is at least my opinion on it. Would be interested to hear your thoughts, Prax.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

If we are going to talk nature and the design of God, in regards to hair or anything else, we are talking teleology (the study of design and purpose in nature), from the Greek word teleios, the word most commonly translated as perfect in the New Testament.

So then, the question becomes, it is teleologically correct to say a man's perfection in Christ (which means completion, i.e. not needing anything to be added/the achievement of the intended goal) is in part dependent upon him having short hair?

Or vice versa for women? A woman's perfection in Christ (as the final goal for which she was purposefully created) is in part dependent upon her having long hair?

If these are the right questions to ask, then the right answers can be discovered. Because now, if this is the way God intends for a man and a woman to be, that is, he designed and purposed this to be so (while still giving us the liberty of will to acquiesce or rebel), then it isn't about standards and outward conformity, or even gender distinctions so much as it is about getting to a certain place in Christ, one of spiritual as well as physical wholeness, where nothing needs to be added to our character or identity in this particular area (even as we may lack in other places).

Short hair on a man then becomes how he achieves mature perfection. It is part of his ability to reach the end goal for which he was created: to be the image and glory of God.

Long hair on a woman then becomes how she achieves mature perfection. It is part of her ability to reach the end goal for which she was created: to be the image and glory of man.

Right. If salvation is to be based upon external and physical, such as hair, this in and of itself, this stands directly in defiance, and goes against the very heart and principle of the teachings of Christ, and the other apostles. Christ taught on principles, and issues of the heart.

All sins listed as sins worthy of hell by the Jesus apostles, were all issues of the heart.

Therefore to make the length of hair or lack thereof an issue of salvation divides the very principles of the teachings of Jesus himself.

God is not the author of confusion. But man is. And these are teachings of the imperfect understanding of man, which have undermined and scarred the very basic gospel and teachings of Christ and the apostles.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by justlookin

The question still isn't answered though. How short is short according to nature and how long is long according to nature?

Does it really matter? Perhaps that is the greater question.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Does it really matter? Perhaps that is the greater question.

yup. or ultimately, does it matter to you. have you guys lexed the 'nature' term yet, to see if it can be stated another way?

[justlookin]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Does it really matter? Perhaps that is the greater question.

I'd like to say it doesn't, but since Paul brought it up it must have importance. I find it interesting that he says that nature teaches us, not the Spirit, but nature. If nature is our teacher in this instance, what is it nature is teaching us? Nature is indicating how long hair must be on a man and how long hair must be on a woman. The thing is, that's relative. It's not a fixed length. It's iffy. If it's short on a man, it's short on a woman and if it's long on a man it's long on a woman. The question is still out there, how long is long and how short is short.

Like many things in scripture, it would be great if the passage was more specific. Maybe something like a man's hair shouldn't be below his shoulders or else it's a sin for him. Conversely, a woman's hair should be below the shoulders or it's a sin for her.

I guess we'd then be arguing about where the shoulder begins and ends if that was the case though.

Maybe the question can't be answered.