Head Coverings

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It is so obvious the primary covering is a veil.

Why would the Apostle say women should have UNCUT HAIR when they PRAY OR PROPHESY?

Why would it not be uncut hair ALL THE TIME?

When she prays or prophesies her head must be covered. He is presenting them with a choice.

You are right, however he does speak of the hair being a covering too.

On the other hand maybe the intent is when she prays or prophesies she should wear her hair like a veil...which always perplexed me how OPs can say her hair is a veil yet they all wear it piled up in church instead of down

[*AQuietPlace*]

To me, this verse shows clearly that Paul was talking about an additional headcovering:

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

To me, this verse shows clearly that Paul was talking about an additional headcovering:

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Amen. Its pretty clear.

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

To me, this verse shows clearly that Paul was talking about an additional headcovering:

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Not to offend, but that's not what I see Paul saying. Her hair is given FOR
a covering. God-given. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or
shaven, let her be covered. With what? Her GOD-given covering. i.e., let
her hair grow as God gave it for a covering.

Hugs,

Falla39

[freeatlast]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Amen. Its pretty clear.

I have felt for years that Paul was using the shame of being shorn as an analogy.

It is known that a common custom was for a woman to be publiclly humiliated by by having her hair shorn for commiting certain sins in the culture that Paul is addressing.

It is clear that he refers to a physical veil that he asks the women to wear when "in church" (praying or prophesying)

I feel Paul was saying, if you married women won't honor your husband by wearing a veil in church you bring a shame upon yourself just as bad as the woman who is publiclly shorn as a punishment.

Paul further emphasizes the need for men not to wear a veil and women to wear one by making another analogy using the difference in hair style or lengths of men and women.

There is absolutly no command in 1 Cor 11 or anywhere else in old or new testamant that even hints that a female can not cut /trim some of the length of her hair of her own volition.

I Cor is not about hair at all. It addressed the "cultural custom" NOT THE COMMANDMENT of VEILING....in places of worship ie church.

There is record I have read of that there was also a PAGAN practice of men veiling and woman not veiling in idolatrous worship of idols, which helps me see why Paul addressed men to not wear a veil in temple/church.

When we fail to exegete bible doctrine without veiwing the content and context and culture and practices of the people it was addressed to, we run the risk of getting it quite wrong.

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Not to offend, but that's not what I see Paul saying. Her hair is given FOR
a covering. God-given. But if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or
shaven, let her be covered. With what? Her GOD-given covering. i.e., let
her hair grow as God gave it for a covering.

Hugs,

Falla39

But you didn't address the first part of the scripture:


6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn


If 'not covered' means she has cut her hair, or has short hair, then what he is saying is:

For if the woman have short hair, let her cut her hair short. (which is what shorn means)

That makes no sense at all. He is talking about an additional headcovering, such as they wore in those days. If she won't wear that headcovering, let her go ahead and cut all of her hair off, too, because they're both a shame. Wearing no headcovering, or having her hair cut off short.

During Paul's time it was a scandal for a married woman to cast off her headcovering. It was considered a sign of submission and modesty.

It was also a shame for a woman to have her head shaved, or her hair cropped closely (shorn).

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by freeatlast

I have felt for years that Paul was using the shame of being shorn as an analogy.

It is known that a common custom was for a woman to be publiclly humiliated by by having her hair shorn for commiting certain sins in the culture that Paul is addressing.

It is clear that he refers to a physical veil that he asks the women to wear when "in church" (praying or prophesying)

I feel Paul was saying, if you married women won't honor your husband by wearing a veil in church you bring a shame upon yourself just as bad as the woman who is publiclly shorn as a punishment.

Paul further emphasizes the need for men not to wear a veil and women to wear one by making another analogy using the difference in hair style or lengths of men and women.

There is absolutly no command in 1 Cor 11 or anywhere else in old or new testamant that even hints that a female can not cut /trim some of the length of her hair of her own volition.

I Cor is not about hair at all. It addressed the "cultural custom" NOT THE COMMANDMENT of VEILING....in places of worship ie church.

There is record I have read of that there was also a PAGAN practice of men veiling and woman not veiling in idolatrous worship of idols, which helps me see why Paul addressed men to not wear a veil in temple/church.

When we fail to exegete bible doctrine without veiwing the content and context and culture and practices of the people it was addressed to, we run the risk of getting it quite wrong.

I agree.

(and I'll mention once again, in case anyone thinks I have a dog in this fight , that I have never cut my hair. But I do care about not taking my views and twisting scripture to say what I want it to say. Just because our churches have always taught against women cutting their hair doesn't mean that we get to twist and turn the scriptures until they back up our doctrine.

Look up the word 'hair' every time it's used in the Bible. You'll find that the Bible is amazingly quiet about women's hair.)

[Twisp]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So then you can conceivably have 1 inch hair and consider that "letting the hair grow"?

BTW I asked how long is long rhetorically. The definition of the word is "to let the hair grow"..."do not cut the hair".."long hair"...not my definition mind you. Hair is not limited to the follicles. Hair is one continuous strand.

What you are doing is limiting what the word "grow" means to only the follicles and not the entire strand of hair. Do you seriously think that is what the greek word means? To cut the hair anywhere above the follicle?

What about finger nails? do they grow?

How does someone "grow" their hair long when the only part of the hair you say is growing are the follicles?

Not only conceivably, but correct. Same as in toenails, fingernails, or hair. The parts we see are dead cells, which is why it does not hurt when we cut our toenails, fingernails, or hair. I am not limiting the word "grow". It is just a fact that no matter how short you cut your hair, unless you actually damage the follicles, you are not keeping your hair from growing.

As for the definition, Strong's does not list it as uncut. The Thayer definition you gave us was to let the hair grow, or to have long hair. The Greek Lexicon of the NT you gave us only said that in some languages it may be necessary to translate it as "to let one's hair grow long" or "to not cut one's hair". You have not posted a definitive definition yet that says "to let the hair grow" as meaning to not cut the hair.

The growing part and the length part are two separate issues. I agree that women should have some kind of separation, since that seems to be in line with the Bible. I just don't think that means uncut, since the Bible is mum on that. The issue here isn't uncut, but how long.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

It is so obvious the primary covering is a veil.

Why would the Apostle say women should have UNCUT HAIR when they PRAY OR PROPHESY?

Why would it not be uncut hair ALL THE TIME?

When she prays or prophesies her head must be covered. He is presenting them with a choice.

OBvious to who?????????????????

1. Because women were being saved from that cult in Corinth where cut hair was common among them.

[Steve Epley]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

To me, this verse shows clearly that Paul was talking about an additional headcovering:

6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Allow her to worship with short hair since she is allowing it to grow...let her be covered.