To cover or not to cover ?

[OakWood]

Paul was addressing a specific problem that was particularly problematic in the Church at Corinth.  The Church in Corinth was Paul's problem child (well them and the Galatians).  

 

Corinth was the most immoral city in the world.  To be called a "Corinthian" was to be called an immoral person or a pervert in today's vernacular.

 

Men who were homosexual male prostitutes and served as temple prostitutes often wore their hair long and in an effeminate way to attract men, particularly sailors who had been at sea for months at a time.  Corinth was  port city and had many visitors who took advantage of the services of prostitutes.  It was a lucrative business in Corinth.

 

These men were getting saved and coming to the church at Corinth and that is the cultural root for why the needed to cut their hair.  That is why their long hair was a disgrace.  The length per se, wasnt the problem The problem was the immoral motivation behind a man having long hair in Corinth.  

 

The same applied to the women, especially those whom had shaved their heads who served as priestesses at the Oracle of Delphi beneath Mt. Pernasssuss near Corinth.  In both cases, the length of their hair was directly tied to a lifestyle that was contrary to Scripture.

 

We tend to forget that the epistle that Paul wrote were ususally in responses to issues related to individual congregations.  Paul's letters were not (with the exception of Ephesians) were not encyclical letters  written to all of the Churches.   Paul's letter to the church at Corinth was a personal letter, not a doctrinal treatise.  He was not writing the universal church but to a local congregation and that letter was written in response to questions they had sent to him. 

 

We read the Scriptures with an advantage that they didn't have.  We have a completed canon and they didn't.   But that doesn't change the fact that personal letters need to be read the way they were intended to be read.   We tend to impose our one-dimensional modern approach to the Bible where we assume that everything in the NT is doctrinal material for all people, for all time, and that it not the case.

 

Everything in Scripture is relevant, but not everything is applicable and we need to learn to recognize the difference, otherwise we end up with some really strange doctrines and practices.

 

Never have I said this to anybody on Worthy before, but (I hope you don't mind), I'm copying and pasting your post word-for-word. My sister will love this explanation.

Thanks.

[ajchurney]

 

It's funny how nobody has mentioned how Paul said that the covering was also for the angels watching....I won't even try to go there! As a couple of posts have mentioned, verse 16 clearly puts this discussion out of the realm of command or requirement. Paul was aparently asked a question about it by the Corinthian believers, probably the elders, and he gives a reasoned response that is suggestive, but again, v16 absolutely takes this out of play as a rule of conduct for the universal church. Proper submission of the wife and headship of the husband is a standing principle, and the reality behind the symbol of the covering. The symbol is certainly not a bad thing, and some women enjoy wearing a head covering, but I would submit that v16 puts this completely in the realm of personal conviction and preference, as long as the reality is being practiced!

It shows it isn't a salvation issue, but I do believe we should follow it.  I believe it goes beyond preference or personal conviction, but doesn't rise to the level of sin. 

 

Butero, you are ignoring v16 and preferring your own opinion above Paul's stated limits of enforcement here, aren't you? It's fine for you to like long hair on your wife and/or a head covering, but honestly what lies between preference and sin here? "Whatever is not of faith is sin." How does this fit your category here? Look up the context of that statement, and it is about questionable things. The fact is that one should not violate one's own conscience, but should really study the word and pray about such things. If the Holy Spirit strengthens or corrects your fallible human conscience, then great. Otherwise, don't do it! This is the sense of "preference" I meant, and it is scriptural, if it is used in the Lord as described. For the Christian, preference does not include violating one's conscience. What I am saying is that unless something is clearly a command in the NT, personal conviction IS the line of "the level of sin"!! If someone changes their hairstyle because you or I told them to, that is worthless religion. If the Holy Spirit personally convicts them, whether through this passage or not, then that defines sin for them.

There is a vast difference between a clear injunction of scripture, and interpolating scripture to justify or bolster our own traditional religious opinions. 

 

PS- Nobody is touching the angel thing still!! lol

Edited March 1, 2014 by ajchurney

[Openly Curious]

Could the "angel thing" be because man was created a little lower than the angels as scripture also states?  I think that the "because of the angels" scriptures also related within the context of the OP is very relevant to the discussion.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

Paul was addressing a specific problem that was particularly problematic in the Church at Corinth.  The Church in Corinth was Paul's problem child (well them and the Galatians).  

 

Corinth was the most immoral city in the world.  To be called a "Corinthian" was to be called an immoral person or a pervert in today's vernacular.

 

Men who were homosexual male prostitutes and served as temple prostitutes often wore their hair long and in an effeminate way to attract men, particularly sailors who had been at sea for months at a time.  Corinth was  port city and had many visitors who took advantage of the services of prostitutes.  It was a lucrative business in Corinth.

 

These men were getting saved and coming to the church at Corinth and that is the cultural root for why the needed to cut their hair.  That is why their long hair was a disgrace.  The length per se, wasnt the problem The problem was the immoral motivation behind a man having long hair in Corinth.  

 

The same applied to the women, especially those whom had shaved their heads who served as priestesses at the Oracle of Delphi beneath Mt. Pernasssuss near Corinth.  In both cases, the length of their hair was directly tied to a lifestyle that was contrary to Scripture.

 

We tend to forget that the epistle that Paul wrote were ususally in responses to issues related to individual congregations.  Paul's letters were not (with the exception of Ephesians) were not encyclical letters  written to all of the Churches.   Paul's letter to the church at Corinth was a personal letter, not a doctrinal treatise.  He was not writing the universal church but to a local congregation and that letter was written in response to questions they had sent to him. 

 

We read the Scriptures with an advantage that they didn't have.  We have a completed canon and they didn't.   But that doesn't change the fact that personal letters need to be read the way they were intended to be read.   We tend to impose our one-dimensional modern approach to the Bible where we assume that everything in the NT is doctrinal material for all people, for all time, and that it not the case.

 

Everything in Scripture is relevant, but not everything is applicable and we need to learn to recognize the difference, otherwise we end up with some really strange doctrines and practices.

 

Never have I said this to anybody on Worthy before, but (I hope you don't mind), I'm copying and pasting your post word-for-word. My sister will love this explanation.

Thanks.

 

I don't mind at all.   I hope you made the necessary proofreading changes.  Yikes!  You got to this before I did, lol. 

[enoob57]

The scripture says her long hair is a covering, so yes, she should have long hair.  It is a sign of submission, whether anyone acknowledges that today or not.  God doesn't change.  He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

No,that is legalism.That is from the OT.If that were the case I would be going straight to hell.And I am not.I can reassure you of that.

1 Corinthians is in the New Testament.  This was never mentioned in the Old Testament.  By now, I would imagine you know that I couldn't care less about the legalism label being thrown around.  What the Bible actually says, in the New Testament is that it is a shame for a man to have long hair and a woman is supposed to have long hair for a covering.  If you don't like it, this is never actually called a sin, just a shame.  God is the same yesterday, today and forever, so I don't accept that only a cultural thing nonsense.

Certainly the common sense of the New Testament writing was in an

Old Testament way of life thus correcting Old Testament error of

thinking that doing is disconnected from the (in) heart attitudes...

When we examine the Scripture it is always a matter of the heart-

God simply does not waste His Words on that which passes away! The

often mistake we make is outward acts and walla we please God and

are acceptable (Sadducee and Pharisee)ism's... We all should

be concerned outward with testimony of inward truth. Clearly those who

do not exercise the understanding of context (cultural realities) are

short sided in this way:

Do this for an experiment for yourselves. Write down on slips of

paper 'come here and sit on my lap baby' and pass the writing around

to others then get responses as you will see proof is in the pudding!

Because of our culture many will indicate a sexual bent to the writing;

Then put it into a contextual format that being a father speaking

across the room to His child. As this is clearly examinable by the

fact of 'IS' those who do not see culture as a necessary consider-

ation lacks understanding in that the culture dictates purpose in

the doing of things and the purpose of doing things is matters of

the heart!

So in context of time, place, culture, event we become the determined

aspect of the writing to the heart and not the outward unconnected

do this and alla walla your in spiritually... and yes following a set

of outward rules for appearance sake was never the directives of The

New Covenant of the heart... that is why Jesus was rejected by the

religious leaders wasn't it? Love, Steven

[kwikphilly]

Blessings Everyone...

     Shiloh has put it so eloquently & it is true of all of Pauls "letters "to the individual churches & especially as he puts it "Pauls problem child-Corinth"....I agree each letter was written to address a specific issue or problem at the particular church at that time but think about it,,,,,,isn't our society today a bit like Corinth was then......we have men with long hair & even dressing in ladies clothing ,women that purposely cut their hair extremely short to clearly erase any outward signs of femininity in their appearance to proclaim to the world that they are lesbian??????

     I don't know,but I think its nice when women look like women & men look like men & both revere God in the best way they know how to do.........JMO

                                                                                                        With love-in Christ,Kwik

 And for women with "frizzy" hair....I don't think it matters if a womans hair grows "out" or "down" just as long as she does not chop it off to look like a man......

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

 

What Jesus says does not change and is for all time.

What Paul says is advice based on the customs of the time. The essence of what Paul says may not change but the details do.

 

Just my opinion.

I believe that what Paul taught is just as much Holy scripture as the teachings of Jesus.  As a matter of fact, Jesus didn't directly pen any of the Bible.  The scriptures that tell us what Jesus taught were written by his disciples.  At the same time, God inspired the entire Bible.  I have never bought into the notion that this teaching was simply a custom of the time, but you are entitled to your opinion.  The bottom line is that we all agree this is not a salvation issue, so unlike some areas, if you want to be contentious about following it, you were told you can ignore it.  By all means, do so.  I really don't have much else to add.  I try to keep it, and I feel convicted when I pray with my head covered, so I keep my hair very short.  I will continue to do so, even if others say it is not relevant. 

 

I'm not saying that what Paul taught is not holy scripture, I am claiming that the examples he uses are not necessarily relevant today. He is telling people to dress respectfully in church (which is still relevant today) but the examples he uses are relevant to a particular custom.

 

Can you give me an example of clothing items Paul mentions in the epistles that is not relevant to today's culture? 

 

 

Long hair. Is it masculine or feminine?

Do we live in a culture that expressly separates men from women due to the length of their hair? When Native Americans were first given the Bible did all the braves and chiefs have to cut off their hair?

Did missionaries to Africa scorn all the tribal women for not having long hair?

 

That doesn't answer my question.  Can you give me an example of clothing items Paul mentions in the epistles that is not relevant to today's culture?  I didn't ask you about hair.  I do want to address something that was said to me now, so I don't have to write another post.  It was said I was ignoring verse 16.  I would say everyone else ignores the first 15 verses as though they don't exist, so why was it written in the first place?  I also want to address the angels.  We know that angels came down and married women.  The long hair is a sign that the woman is under authority, so when the angels see that, they recognize the headship of her husband and Jesus Christ. 

 

To HisG, the long hair is her covering.  It explains that when a woman has short hair, it is as though she is not covered.  It is very clear if you look at the full context of the passage.  Short hair on a woman is not a covering.  It is as though she has shaved her head. 

 

To Saved34, I mean when I pray, period.  I don't feel right praying with my head covered, even driving down the road in my truck. 

[Guest Butero]

Blessings Everyone...

     Shiloh has put it so eloquently & it is true of all of Pauls "letters "to the individual churches & especially as he puts it "Pauls problem child-Corinth"....I agree each letter was written to address a specific issue or problem at the particular church at that time but think about it,,,,,,isn't our society today a bit like Corinth was then......we have men with long hair & even dressing in ladies clothing ,women that purposely cut their hair extremely short to clearly erase any outward signs of femininity in their appearance to proclaim to the world that they are lesbian??????

     I don't know,but I think its nice when women look like women & men look like men & both revere God in the best way they know how to do.........JMO

                                                                                                        With love-in Christ,Kwik

 And for women with "frizzy" hair....I don't think it matters if a womans hair grows "out" or "down" just as long as she does not chop it off to look like a man......

That is very well said Kwikphilly.  I agree with everything you said. 

[OakWood]

 

 

 

 

 

What Jesus says does not change and is for all time.

What Paul says is advice based on the customs of the time. The essence of what Paul says may not change but the details do.

 

Just my opinion.

I believe that what Paul taught is just as much Holy scripture as the teachings of Jesus.  As a matter of fact, Jesus didn't directly pen any of the Bible.  The scriptures that tell us what Jesus taught were written by his disciples.  At the same time, God inspired the entire Bible.  I have never bought into the notion that this teaching was simply a custom of the time, but you are entitled to your opinion.  The bottom line is that we all agree this is not a salvation issue, so unlike some areas, if you want to be contentious about following it, you were told you can ignore it.  By all means, do so.  I really don't have much else to add.  I try to keep it, and I feel convicted when I pray with my head covered, so I keep my hair very short.  I will continue to do so, even if others say it is not relevant. 

 

I'm not saying that what Paul taught is not holy scripture, I am claiming that the examples he uses are not necessarily relevant today. He is telling people to dress respectfully in church (which is still relevant today) but the examples he uses are relevant to a particular custom.

 

Can you give me an example of clothing items Paul mentions in the epistles that is not relevant to today's culture? 

 

 

Long hair. Is it masculine or feminine?

Do we live in a culture that expressly separates men from women due to the length of their hair? When Native Americans were first given the Bible did all the braves and chiefs have to cut off their hair?

Did missionaries to Africa scorn all the tribal women for not having long hair?

 

That doesn't answer my question.  Can you give me an example of clothing items Paul mentions in the epistles that is not relevant to today's culture?  I didn't ask you about hair.  I do want to address something that was said to me now, so I don't have to write another post.  It was said I was ignoring verse 16.  I would say everyone else ignores the first 15 verses as though they don't exist, so why was it written in the first place?  I also want to address the angels.  We know that angels came down and married women.  The long hair is a sign that the woman is under authority, so when the angels see that, they recognize the headship of her husband and Jesus Christ. 

 

To HisG, the long hair is her covering.  It explains that when a woman has short hair, it is as though she is not covered.  It is very clear if you look at the full context of the passage.  Short hair on a woman is not a covering.  It is as though she has shaved her head. 

 

To Saved34, I mean when I pray, period.  I don't feel right praying with my head covered, even driving down the road in my truck. 

 

 

I apologise. I see hair as clothing too, because it can often be styled to preference as in the expression "how do you wear you hair?"

Sorry, I can't think of any other specifics.

[firestormx]

I hope I am not out of line for saying this, but isn't this conversation about majoring in the minors? One of the things Jesus often spoke about was looking at the letter of the word and missing the heart of the message. Isn't the heart of the message here that each of us should always pray and seek the Lord from a position of submission to one another and God. As long as we are doing all things from a pure heart, being submitted to God, does it really matter? Isn't the message that Paul is giving in this verse about remaining submitted in all situations for men and women both? It's easy to see the flesh, but it's the heart that must submit first, and it's God that sees the heart. May the Holy Spirit of God guide and teach you all in Jesus name.

 

Firestormx