Head Coverings Predated Christianity

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

...Continued from 1/2

The Greeks, and others also, developed a practice of the use of a symbol to portray fidelity to marriage relationships - veils. A woman would not display the glory of beautiful hair publicly, doing so to avoid unwanted romantic attention, by veiling it. Thus, fidelity was symbolized by the veil but this not from a command of God asking for it. This was a man-made tradition.

Another symbol is also located on a woman's head - long hair. It symbolizes she will take the effort to plz her man, who likes the looks of long hair. Women will testify that it is easier to keep short hair, but have long hair in spite of the extra work. Men love the look of long hair on a woman. If a woman wishes to diss her man, then she may spite him by cutting her hair short. The feminist movements demonstrated this quite well. They said 'cut your hair' as a protest against who? Male chauvinism.

Thus, a woman's hair symbolizes respect for men's desires. She shows regard to God's Order of Authority doing so. This is seen 1) in that Eve was created for Adam's purposes and also 2) in God's words to her after the Fall, Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. God 'willed' for her to have the nature which showed this. She may reject man's rule by removing the things he likes, her hair. This does not show her keeping to God's 'will' to desire for him.

Thus, it can be interpreted that Paul refers to two separate head symbols. Neither of these were commanded for those in the OT, those who we could assume loved and obeyed God. This can be confidently said, because reading the OT does not show this command. Paul cannot see these practices as commands in his reading of the OT and would not NT teach that which he did not see in the OT Word.

If the OT has no command indicating the keeping of a symbol, then how could it ever come to be for Paul to command a thing he has not seen there, for the NT? Answer: Instincts.

The God-given instincts shown in the God-given nature of women seen in Ge3.16 revealed it as a symbol. Yet for Paul to see that long hair is a symbol coming from the instincts in the nature given women does not indicate that he would command long hair for the NT. If God had not seen fit to command it in the OT, then he would follow God's example and not command it in the NT.

Men like long hair on a woman and God said women would naturally have a desire for their husband. If a woman has the long hair a man likes, it then is a symbol of her showing her desire for your husband. It shows respect for how God made her - for her man. We call this: giving respect to God's Order of Authority.

If God has not commanded either veil or long hair in the only Book Paul has to read, the OT, and it really is instinct which motivates a woman to have long hair, then which instincts motivated the veil?

Does the jealousy a man might have, come because his woman got romantic attraction from showing her hair, this coming from an instinct? Is a woman's normal desire to protect herself and her marriage from unwanted romantic attraction, coming by a veiling instinct?

Rather than from instincts, these things may be seen coming about from Man's carnal Fallen nature. Carnal nature suspiciously thinks ill of others, and not showing the trust which jealousy denies. Her fears of the jealous one (or, just of any unwanted romantic attention she may herself not want to get when exposing her hair) and its repercussions, leads a woman to take means to make it not happen - by veiling herself. Veiling was a human invention used to cover the glory of hair which comes naturally. A head covering served as a visual "Exousia," signaling to the spiritual realm that the woman was operating within the protected boundaries of God’s created order. This signalling could be done by either the long hair cover or the veil cover. Both are plainly visible to angels. If neither are OT commanded of God, then which one naturally points to the one angels would observe?

Long hair is not a human invention. Veiling is. Therefore, there would have been a time when veils did not exist. Estimates of the first use are 2000-1400 BC. If accurate, then 2000 yrs of history previous had no veiling, and a woman was then without the symbol the angels look for. And for 2000 yrs she would not been seen to show regard to God's Order of Authority if the veil is the means - unless she does so from following her instincts for long hair. If there is no command of God to show the symbol, then instincts from her God-given nature may provide the means to do so. It is inconceivable that those women of God of that time did not show regard to God's Order of Authority. Instincts provide the means when no commandments are known for it. The symbol which the angels observe is long hair.

It thus is more natural to think this angelic-observance first started with the creation of Man. From the git-go the angels would have observed a symbol but not the veil. Eve would have been expected to show regard to God's Order of Authority even before the Fall, right? Yes, of course.

The dominant purpose of God's giving of hair is adornment. For, what biological purposes does it have if not mostly ornamental? If not mostly for those who would see it on someone else and not so much on themselves, then would it be only mostly for the person growing it? No. Well, yes for both, but would it be wrong to think it would be more for others, including angels?

Summary of Interpretation
For Paul, this passage isn't about social inferiority, Plz define what social inferiority is in relation to 1Co11. If undefined it then lacks proper meaning for those without the definition. but about the "proper placement" of glory. By understanding these Hebrew roots, we see that the physical act of covering or uncovering the head was a way of honoring one's "Source" (Rosh) and ensuring that in the presence of the Holy, all human "weight" (Kavod) is surrendered to God. It can be said that applying these Hebrew root-meanings can be seen to apply to the vv interpretation. They will fit it. And these same root meanings can also be applied elsewhere, in another interpretation. Seeing that they can be seen to fit does not yet provide firm evidence of which head-covering view is the best view. Had the Lord actually made a clear command for head-coverings, either OT or NT, then the many interpretations would not have appeared. The absence of this command is telling of something: God has not commanded head coverings. What is written in 1Co11 is from a view point that is not commanding anything.

God does not give commands for every detail in life. God has not made Man robotic, that every minute must be controlled by statute. Apparently, he gives Man life, stands back and thinks: I wonder what Man will make of what I've given them. Go for it Man - surprise me.

Here is a glossary of the key Hebrew terms used to understand 1 Corinthians 11:3–10 through a Hebraic lens. Why Hebrew Amanah? What makes this better than the Greek. The Biblical writers and readers grew up in worlds where Greek was dominant, the language of the day, spoken and read by most in many nations. Thus, it is the cultural language most everyone grew up in, were steeped in, for thought and the words used to communicate ideas with. Isn't it thought by Bible translators that God gifted the world with the Greek language as the best language, for translation of the Word of God, into other languages? Why do you wish to add another unnecessary step into the process of our understanding, Gk to He to En, when the direct from Gk to En is the most logical? Paul is well able to convey Hebrew concepts he grew up with through the Greek language. Paul writes 1Co11 to the Co in their own native tongue.