Uncut Hair

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

And that helps no one. LOL! Can you give me a link with the word in Greek for uncut and the definition online, please? Thanks.

*If sentence diagramming the originally-inspired languages of the Bible does not "help no one," they are beyond help. Silly.

*I have already provided a link on this thread several times, but, here she goes one more time:

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

(*Note: In the near future there will be many articles on this blog concerning outward holiness apologetics-exegesis from the biblical data itself.)

*This article is replete w. lexical quotes from the most authoritative Greek resources available. Will also point out that the verb translated "have long hair" in v. 15 (κομᾷ) is a present tense *ACTIVE* voice verb - denoting on-going action.

*That is, the aspect (known as aktionsart) of this parsing of the verb in this text denotes a woman's hair is "actively" growing long (http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-15.htm).

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If we look at Paul's argumentation, we can see he gives the following reasons for his teaching concerning men and women and the covering or uncovering of their heads:

1. Headship as a metaphor for authority. verse 3
2. Covering or uncovering demonstrates dishonour to one's head/authority (a double entendre). verses 4-5
3. An uncovered woman (praying or prophesying) is equivalent to being shorn or shaven. verses 5-6
4. The issue of reflective glory. verse 7
5. The order of origin/creation. verse 8
6. The purpose of their respective creations. verse 9
7. The issue of the angels. verse 10
8. The lesson from nature concerning long hair. verses 13-15
9. The universal custom of the apostles. verse 16
10. The universal custom of the churches of God. verse 16

Even if one were to argue "the churches of God no longer have a universal custom on this issue, therefore reason 10 is no longer valid", and "the apostles are all dead, so reason 9 is no longer valid", and even if one were to argue that "nature's lesson" is ambiguous (and thus plainly declare that Paul was misusing nature as a support for his teaching!), and even if one were to add the claim that a woman being shorn or shaven is no longer dishonourable or a shame, the other reasons still remain: Man is the glory of God, the woman is the glory of the man, man was created first and the woman was created for the man, and there are still angels. Since each of those things were given as reasons supporting his instructions about what ought to be done, and since those reasons still clearly and unarguably remain true and valid, then it follows that his instructions remain true and valid.

In other words, this is not a "cultural issue" relative to Corinth in the first century, or to the greater Roman world in the first century, alone. Rather, it is a collection of timeless and universal truths calling for men and women to modify their behaviour in worship accordingly, as per the apostle's instructions. His instructions are just as valid (and thus binding) today upon all Christians everywhere as they were in Corinth in the first century.

You make some very important points.

Regarding I Corinthians 11:16, it reads:

I Corinthians 11:6 (KJV)
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (ESV)
16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NRSV)
16 But if anyone is disposed to be contentious—we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

1 Corinthians 11:16 (NLT)
16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, I simply say that we have no other custom than this, and neither do God’s other churches.

I think a case can be made that Paul is advising believers not to be contentious over this teaching, because it is a recognized truth in all the churches.

But what exactly is the teaching?

I think the issue appears to be that women were getting too zealous for their liberty in Christ and they were choosing not to wear their head coverings. This was obviously challenging social norms as it relates to modesty and propriety. This was also bringing shame on their heads (their husbands) because they were looking like loose women. Headship was obviously also an issue. I believe that this indicates that their husbands desired them to wear their coverings, and the women were disregarding their husband's wishes and arguing for their freedom to not wear them.

While the problem surrounds the wearing of the head covering, the deeper issues are immodesty/impropriety and the women's refusal to accept the headship of their husbands. Much of the same would have been said if the women were appearing immodest or improper in any other way, with a disregard towards their husband's wishes. The only difference might have been that Paul couldn't use double entendre.

So, I see verse 16 not necessarily stating that head coverings are a universal practice to be embraced... but rather modesty and submission are a universal practice in the church that are to be embraced.

Such a view allows for some cultural flexibility and consideration on behalf of the elders as churches navigate what is modest in any given time and place. With the principles of modesty and headship always being preeminent.

This would mean that modesty standards are often necessary for the church in every age. And while modesty standards might differ to some degree in various times and places, the principles of modesty, and submission on the part of women, are eternal.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by Esaias

For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
(1 Corinthians 11:7-12)

He is clearly referring to Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 2:7-8, Genesis 2:18-25, and Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:20.

I have always agreed with this portion of the text referring to Genesis.

Interesting note on the idea of "the woman is the glory of the man": A verse in Isaiah describes the crafting of idols thus:

The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
(Isaiah 44:13)

The Targum on that verse renders the bolded portion as "according to the praise of a woman". Rabbi Solomon Jarchi (an 11th century commentator on the Targum) says of this portion "This is a woman, who is the glory of her husband." Thus, it was apparently a common idea in Judaism that the woman was understood to be "the glory of the man", that is to say, women were considered something that adorned their husbands with praise and beauty. Now, whether Jarchi got the idea from Paul and later Christians, or whether Jarchi's comment reflects an independent stream of thought, is hard to say. But in any case Paul certainly maintained that the woman is the glory of the man.

That is something to put in the file as interesting.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by rdp

*If sentence diagramming the originally-inspired languages of the Bible does not "help no one," they are beyond help. Silly.

Right, but I would need to view the text from which I could draw up my diagram.

*I have already provided a link on this thread several times, but, here she goes one more time:

https://apostolicacademics.com/2016/...from-i-cor-11/

(*Note: In the near future there will be many articles on this blog concerning outward holiness apologetics-exegesis from the biblical data itself.)

*This article is replete w. lexical quotes from the most authoritative Greek resources available. Will also point out that the verb translated "have long hair" in v. 15 (κομᾷ) is a present tense *ACTIVE* voice verb - denoting on-going action.

Is this your website?

*That is, the aspect (known as aktionsart) of this parsing of the verb in this text denotes a woman's hair is "actively" growing long (http://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/11-15.htm).

The wording sounds very beautiful.

"A woman however if she has long hair, glory to her it is, for the long hair instead, as a covering is given to her."

[Aquila]

Here's a question.

In the trial by ordeal in which a man becomes suspicious of his wife being unfaithful, she is brought before the priest and in preparation for the ceremony, her head is uncovered, meaning her veil is removed.

Numbers 5:16-18 King James Version (KJV)
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Why would a woman's veil need to be removed in this ceremony?

It is my understanding that her head was uncovered to shame her, to have her appear immodest, because she has given reason for her husband to suspect unfaithfulness.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Here's a question.

In the trial by ordeal in which a man becomes suspicious of his wife being unfaithful, she is brought before the priest and in preparation for the ceremony, her head is uncovered, meaning her veil is removed.

Numbers 5:16-18 King James Version (KJV)
16 And the priest shall bring her near, and set her before the Lord:
17 And the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water:
18 And the priest shall set the woman before the Lord, and uncover the woman's head, and put the offering of memorial in her hands, which is the jealousy offering: and the priest shall have in his hand the bitter water that causeth the curse:

Why would a woman's veil need to be removed in this ceremony?

she was disgraced until proven innocent.

For if a woman does not cover her head,
let her also have her hair cut off
But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off
Or her head shaved
Let her cover her head

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

she was disgraced until proven innocent.

For if a woman does not cover her head,
let her also have her hair cut off
But if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off
Or her head shaved
Let her cover her head

Bingo.

You see, Paul's teachings in this passage are in perfect harmony with ancient cultural norms, Jewish practice, and even implications drawn from the law. The husbands in these congregations were outraged. The women were not in subjection. And the women's abandonment of their veils was bringing dishonor upon their husbands (their heads) because according to social norms, they looked like immodest and immoral women, or women of questionable morals at best.

This teaching about "uncut hair" and "hair being the covering" is something I've only found among Apostolic Pentecostals in the United States. It's a private interpretation that is divorced from the traditional understanding of the Greek language, social history, and cultural norms that have been in place for over 1,800 years.

Here's a very interesting article that might help us see things as Paul might have understood them and better understand the principles he laid out for the church:

Hair Coverings for Married Women
Why most Orthodox women cover their hair, whether with wigs, hats or scarves.
By Alieza Salzberg
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/art...married-women/

Those who say that head covering wasn't an issue of modesty and public propriety truly need to dig deeper into the issue. And not just from mid-Twentieth Century American Pentecostal sources.

[Amanah]

Numbers 5:16-18 was also a way for an innocent woman to be justified and a marriage restored.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Numbers 5:16-18 was also a way for an innocent woman to be justified and a marriage restored.

Amen.

Though the revelation of guilt was a horror that has troubled me since I studied it.

[returnman]

Originally Posted by Aquila

25 million Greek speaking Christians in the world, and yet only a narrow sliver of non Greek speaking Americans in the mid 1900's figured out that the passage is about uncut hair.

Over 1,800 years of Greek translation and near universal practice, all figured out by them there Pentecostals.

The New Living Translation has a good rendering:

I Corinthians 11:4-15
4 A man dishonors his head if he covers his head while praying or prophesying. 5 But a woman dishonors her head if she prays or prophesies without a covering on her head, for this is the same as shaving her head. 6 Yes, if she refuses to wear a head covering, she should cut off all her hair! But since it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or her head shaved, she should wear a covering.
7 A man should not wear anything on his head when worshiping, for man is made in God’s image and reflects God’s glory. And woman reflects man’s glory. 8 For the first man didn’t come from woman, but the first woman came from man. 9 And man was not made for woman, but woman was made for man. 10 For this reason, and because the angels are watching, a woman should wear a covering on her head to show she is under authority.
11 But among the Lord’s people, women are not independent of men, and men are not independent of women. 12 For although the first woman came from man, every other man was born from a woman, and everything comes from God.
13 Judge for yourselves. Is it right for a woman to pray to God in public without covering her head? 14 Isn’t it obvious that it’s disgraceful for a man to have long hair? 15 And isn’t long hair a woman’s pride and joy? For it has been given to her as a covering.

A decent paraphrase would be:

“Every man while praying or prophesying having a shawl, or head covering, hanging down over his head – dishonors his head, which is Christ. But every woman while praying or prophesying, with her head uncovered dishonors her head, her husband. For this would be one and the same thing as if she had her head shaved. For assuming that a woman’s head or hair is uncovered, let her also cut her hair close. Since it is dishonorable for a woman to be shaven or her hair cropped close, let her put a shawl over her head (or a scarf).
“For indeed a male individual is morally obligated not to cover his head in that manner, since he is so constituted as to be the derived image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For a man is not out of the woman, as a source, but the woman is out of the man. Assuredly, the man was not created for the sake of the woman, but a woman was created for the sake of the man. On this account the woman is under moral obligation to be having a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
“Nevertheless, man is not complete apart from a woman in the Lord. For even as the woman came out of the man, as a source, does also the man owe his existence to the intermediate agency of the woman. But all things are out of God as a source. Come to a decision among yourselves. Is it seemly or fitting for a woman to be engaged in prayer to God, not wearing the shawl hanging down over her head? Does not the innate sense of propriety itself based upon the objective difference in the constitution of things (the difference between the male and the female) teach you that indeed if a man allows his hair to grow long it is a disgrace to him? But if a woman allows her hair to grow long it is her glory because her head of hair has been given to her for a permanent covering (answering in character to, but not a substitute for a shawl).

What most non Greek speaking people fail to see is that verses 13 through 15 are a supplemental polemic supporting his theme by example, NOT a summary statement.

Very passionate about this and agree whole heart. For folks that hold the uncut hair stand, keep on keep on. I wouldn't expect to change your stance however don't put a woman in hell over it. Hard to imagine the NT church requiring such to be a salvation issue. You've repented, baptized, walking in the spirit but if you break out the scissors none of that will matter. Never did buy into it.