1 cor 11 (the hair issue)

[David333]

WOW!!!

First, methinks it is very apparent as to why we have so many schisms (denominations) within what was initially intended to be a unified whole (the Body of Christ); or as Jesus Himself said to Peter, "....upon this rock, I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Seems to me, that as long as Born-Again Believers continue to bicker and argue and fuss over such trivial matters, that the devil already has the upper hand. How so? His greatest strategy to steal our Joy from us, kill us, and destroy our witness for Christ, is simply to Divide and Conquer. Anyways, moving on to the original post at hand.....

The "real issue" that is being dealt with in this passage, by the Apostle Paul, is not with hair at all. In the same way that Jesus made known the things pertaining to the Kingdom of Heaven by telling parables (Parable = A physical story with a spiritual meaning.), Paul is doing likewise in this passage of Scripture. Paul didn't want us (Christians) to be "splitting hairs" (pun much intended ) over the personal preference/non-salvation/culturally permissible issue of "hair length", or the lack thereof. What Paul was trying to make the Corinthian's and all believers understand is the "Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy" and where each person individually fits into this system. He is not talking about "hair" in a literal sense, but in a more symbolic way of us understanding the "covering" that we each have over us. Why is this "covering" important? If we will zoom out of chapter 11, and first understand that the Apostle Paul didn't write his letters with chapter and verse seperations (these were added at a later date), we will see that the general gist of Paul's message in the few preceeding and post-ceeding "chapters" is, Prayer. Plain and simple, Prayer.

This is why he says that praying without a "covering" is dishonoring to the individuals "head", and thereby ultimately dishonorable to God our Father, seeing that He is the One who instituted this Hierarchy from before, "...In the beginning....".

Here is the breakdown of the Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy: (from 1 Corinthians 11) -

1. God

2. Jesus Christ

3. Man

4. Woman

5. Children (not mentioned by Paul here)

Now, one point I must clear up before it gets all muddled up is this. Just because God set this system of Spiritual Authoritative Hierarchy in this order, this by no means, or in any way whatsoever justifies the "superiority" of a man over a woman. In God's eyes and in His awesome plan of Salvation for us humans, the man is not greater than the woman; nor the woman greater than the man. See verses 8, 9, 11, and 12 of 1 Corinthians 11. And Paul makes this a bit more clear in Galatians 3:28. I do pray that what I have spoken thus far has, or will help us to become a more unified Body of Christ. I will not even begin to touch here the extremely divisive Doctrine of "Womens Roles in the Church". God Bless. Shalom......

Nothing in the Bible is trivial. I found your post interesting because you are agreeing with me that this is speaking of authority, and that the hair symbolizes being under authority. If there is a difference of opinion, it is just that you don't seem to think it is necessary to follow the guidelines that men have short hair and women have long hair, like it is just enough to understand the deeper meaning.

Ok, lets look at what Jesus said in Matthew 13. Now we both know that the Kingdom of Heaven is not a literal "mustard seed", or a literal "good seed", nor is it literally "leaven". He spoke in parables describing what the Kingdom of Heaven is like, to the people He was speaking to. (Metephorical/Symbolical/Figurative Comparison) This is the same exact thing that the Apostle Paul did in 1 Corinthians 11 with the "hair" issue. This issue of one's "hair" as a Biblical Mandate, or God given-guideline, or a Biblical Commandment, is just not so. Rather it is, and has for many, many years been a wedge that the devil has used and is obviously still using today to keep the Body of Christ (if we can even truly call ourselves that, a body),split, divided and of the utmost unproductive use for the Kingdom of God and the Cause of Christ. I never said that it is just enough to understand the deeper meaning of the Scriptures. Rather, I think that before one wholeheartedly pulls a passage of Scripture from the Word and tries to use it as a "guideline", one needs to understand the original intent and cultural application of the passage. In other words, why did St. Paul say what he said, to who he said it to? As we more often, to our detriment, sometimes do, when reading the Word of God we have an automatic vision of how the passage would apply to us in our generation, and in our culture today; rather than to first try and understand the historical/contextual setting of the given passage.

[Guest man]

I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality,...

Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between...

Are these statements really necessary?

[David333]

It is really no differen't than them having to abstain from pork under the Old Testament as a sign of separation from the heathen nations, and today, we can eat anything sold at the market, which is a sign that the gentiles have been included into God's plan of salvation. There are some differences from the Old and New Testament, not only in the way we conduct ourselves, but when it comes to things used as a sign.

No, it's not like that at all. It is completely dissimilar. Paul's statement to eat anything sold in the market was in the context of eating what was sacrificed to idols. Paul was not declaring that the dietary laws of the OT had been repealed. His point was that idols are nothing and thus eating meat sacrificed to idols was not jeopardizing one's salvation before God. You are still misapplying the text.

It would mean that if a man wears a dress, nobody should say anything, and since we have gotten so liberal with women wearing pants to work and even church, it should be ok for men to wear a dress to work and church.

That is absurd. Women wear pants made and cut for women. They are not wearing men's clothes.

You are trying to insert modern culture into Scripture. Women wearing pants made for women is not cross dressing. I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality, but one has to be honest about what actually constitutes "cross-dressing." Cross-dressing is more than just wearing clothes made explicitly for the opposite sex. It is an attempt to take on the appearance and characteristics of the opposite sex. It includes perfume, make up, jewlery, and attitude. It is when a woman or man consciously tries to appear in both appearance and in behavior like the opposite sex. Genuine cross-dressing is a sub-set of transexuality.

The "hair" issue in 1 Corinthians occurs in a setting of rampant transexuality and the issues surrounding the believers in that congregation. It was not meant by Paul to be a universal proclamation of how all Christians should appear. Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between what is genuine doctrinal material vs. godly advice offered to a specific congregation to deal with a specific need that they have.

AMEN!!!

[Guest LadyC]

You are trying to insert modern culture into Scripture.

and take ancient culture out of scripture. amazing.

[Guest shiloh357]

I am not misapplying anything. In Peter's vision in Acts, it becomes clear that the reason certain animals were unclean was because they were a sign of separation from the unclean and idol worshipping gentile nations.

No, the vision according to Peter who explained it TWICE was that the animals represented the Gentiles whom the Jews called unclean. God sent the vision three times because of the three Gentiles whom led Peter to Cornelius' house. Peter said that the meaning of the vision was that He was not to call Gentiles unclean. That is the ONLY meaning Scripture applies to the vision.

It really makes no difference whether or not the other passage is speaking of foods sacrificed to idols, because it still plainly states we can eat anything sold in the market place.

It makes all the difference, because Paul was not talking to Jews about what was clean or unclean. He was talking to Gentiles who were not under the dietary laws in the first place so to apply it to an issue that was not a part of the line of thought in the passage is ridiculous.

You couldn't do that under Old Testament law.

But that never applied to Gentiles, so it would not be an issue for them.

It doesn't say, you can eat foods sacrficed to idols sold in the market place. It says you can eat anything sold in the market place.

The context only allows for us to apply this to the issue at hand, not to any issue we see fit. That's the problem; we have people like you who just run with whatever seems right to them and completely ignore the object the text and the author have in view.

Yes, people market what pertains to a man to women today because they will buy and wear it. That still doesn't make it right.

Markeing pants made for women to women is what they are doing.

No, cross dressing isn't more than just wearing apparel that pertains to the opposite sex.

Yes it is.

As I stated, I have a solicitation from "Concerned Women For America" about a boy named Jesse who wears a skirt made for him by his Mother to school, and they are unhappy that the book promotes cross dressing among boys. It was made for him, so what is the difference? I suppose these women are living in 1910 as well? Personally,

I would rather be living in a society with 1910 values than what we have today. I also prefer small town values to that of the city, you know, virtuous places like San Francisco and Chicago. I suppose those people have it all together? I would argue that the cross dressing is a symptom of the great falling away taking place before the return of Jesus.

There are plenty of small town value people who have a sense of reason and know the difference between genuine cross-dressing which is just a sub-set of transvestitism and simply wearing clothes that are made for women. Women have been wearing "pants" for centuries. Scottish and Irish men and men in other countries have also worn kilts for centuries as well.

[Guest shiloh357]

I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality,...

Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between...

Are these statements really necessary?

they are an honest assessment of the type of logic or lack thereof being applied to this issue.

[Guest]

I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality,...

Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between...

Are these statements really necessary?

I saw that too and considered reporting it, but I decided to respond to it instead. The very charge is ridiculous. There is a church in Charlotte that holds to almost the exact same views I do, except they are stricter, and according to Shiloh's way of looking at things, more legalistic. The Pastor has a doctorate, and Charlotte is hardly a hick town. Liberals in the church world can't help themselves when they get into debates like this. They have to revert to personal attacks because they have no substance.

:24:

And Here I Thought You All Were Being Flattered And Complimented!

For Every Bit I Eat Came Off Of Some "Hick" Farm Or Ranch

So I Thank The LORD For These Hard Working Ones

Asking His Blessing Upon The Producers

And Upon Their Families Too

And Their Fellowships

In Jesus' Name

Amen!

[Guest man]

I realize that repressive "1910" hick-town culture can't make room for that reality,...

Intelligent, thinking people can make the distinction between...

Are these statements really necessary?

they are an honest assessment of the type of logic or lack thereof being applied to this issue.

Calling someone a stupid hick because you don't agree with them.

Shallow.

[Guest LadyC]

oh give me a break, he didn't call ANYBODY a stupid hick.

he referred to a cultural mentality. a 1910 hick-town cultural mentality. so unless you also are accusing shiloh of calling butero a 100 year old geezer from the mountains, who doesn't have electricity and has an out-house a half acre from the main house, then back off and quit twisting things into whatever you want to twist them into, because the rest of us can clearly distinguish between calling names and referring to a mentality that was once common in the appalacian and ozark mountains.

[nebula]

Butero -

Your response may make perfect sense to you, but it makes absolutely no sense to me.

I do not understand why you regard the Nazarite vow so disdainfully. It comes across as if you can't reconcile it, so you make excuses behind not getting the vow as a means to discredit it.

Sad.