To cover or not to cover ?

[other one]

 

I had to vote other, for you don't say in what instances you are speaking of.....

1 Corinthians 11:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

 

i was just looking at the question...  I didn't see your post until later.

 

I don't think I understand what is behind your question since right up front, the scripture you quote is pretty clear about what Paul was saying.....   but we are only speaking of praying and prophesying in public I am assuming.

 

 

1 Cor 11:16

16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

NASB

 

but I wouldn't make a big issue out of it.

[missmuffet]

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.

[KC02]

I agree with bopeep. It was a cultural thing. It was offensive to see women in the church without long hair (her head covering). Long hair showed submission to God and her husband.

 

I don't think it applies to the 21st century Western culture. The custom and meaning has long been lost. St. Paul was saying that if a women wears short hair she might as well shave it all off. Prostitutes were known to have short or shaven heads. Dishonoring her head would mean she is dishonoring her husband. I don't see how this is applicable in Western society.

 

Of course we have little to go on when explaining why St. Paul was inspired to pen these words. If you are a woman who feels that God wants you to wear long hair, you should obey your conscience.

[Guest Butero]

 

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. 

[Guest Butero]

I agree with bopeep. It was a cultural thing. It was offensive to see women in the church without long hair (her head covering). Long hair showed submission to God and her husband.

 

I don't think it applies to the 21st century Western culture. The custom and meaning has long been lost. St. Paul was saying that if a women wears short hair she might as well shave it all off. Prostitutes were known to have short or shaven heads. Dishonoring her head would mean she is dishonoring her husband. I don't see how this is applicable in Western society.

 

Of course we have little to go on when explaining why St. Paul was inspired to pen these words. If you are a woman who feels that God wants you to wear long hair, you should obey your conscience.

When the culture is at odds with scripture, I go with scripture.  There are a lot of things that are wrong in western society.  Long hair on a woman still shows submission to God and her husband, and when a man has short hair, it shows he is in submission to his spiritual head, Jesus Christ. 

[JohnD]

Yes, but I voted other because these is a thing in the category "best or most ideal." Yet when practicality and the circumstances we live in this would be under the heading of must needs be for now.

 

Ideally women should not teach or usurp authority over men. But when men are too lazy or cowardice to step up then it is far better that a woman step up to these ministries than they are not performed.

 

The prophetess Deborah was a prime example.

 

The women at the tomb of Jesus...

 

The head covering was for two major reasons:

 

1. to provide for a woman and to protect her her head covering was in respect to the house she was a part of (husband, brother, father, uncle)

2. to cover "her glory" (long hair) the same as she would have covered her body to keep from drawing attention to herself / and the lust of men. See 1 Peter 3:1-7...

 

Again there are the ideal commands of scripture and the practical. Esther was subject to the house of Mordecai her cousin or uncle yet she was in what essentially was a beauty contest to replace a defrocked Queen who refused to expose herself to the King's serfs wearing only her crown. I doubt Esther was covered from head to toe...

 

Women were not permitted to work (looked down upon if they did) because most men had to gird up their robes exposing the nakedness of their legs. See Isaiah 47:1-3 which defines this as shameful nakedness. But women did (Esther was one of them).

 

Since every believer is a priest of God and most believers do not step up to that calling Christian evangelization of the world (Matthew 28:19-20) is woefully understaffed and woefully behind in our outreach...

 

I believe now is not the time to knit pick about such things.

 

If a woman believes she dishonors God or ought to pray with her head covered, then by all means cover the head.

 

Conversely, what if men pray with their hat on?

 

Personally I take my hat off when I pray... even if it is not convenient. But that's my personal conviction towards the biblical text.

 

No one convinced me of my personal actions in the matter. I simply did so myself.

 

 

 

 

[Izzel]

 

 

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. 

What about women with short hair is that their covering ?

 

If you read the passage carefully, the answer is no.  Her long hair is a sign of submission, and it is a glory to her.  The same passage says that if a man has long hair, it is a shame for him.  It would show he is in rebellion against his head. 

 

There  are women who have only short hair eg some women in  Africa while their are some women with long hair eg India 

[Izzel]

 

 

Yes a woman should have hair on their head for it is her glory (comely-beauty not her own but what God naturally gave her) as scripture has so stated.  It is up to each individual woman to determine the length of her own hair.  The word long means to flop.  And I know logically that short or shaven hair does not flop.  This is my personal view about it.

Is it all right for a woman to wear long hair wigs ?

 

 

If a woman so desires to wear a long haired wig that up to them.  Me personally I don't think their is any evil being done by doing so. 

 

Their are women who lose their hair during chemotherapy are the uncovered because they are bald head ?

[Izzel]

 

I agree with bopeep. It was a cultural thing. It was offensive to see women in the church without long hair (her head covering). Long hair showed submission to God and her husband.

 

I don't think it applies to the 21st century Western culture. The custom and meaning has long been lost. St. Paul was saying that if a women wears short hair she might as well shave it all off. Prostitutes were known to have short or shaven heads. Dishonoring her head would mean she is dishonoring her husband. I don't see how this is applicable in Western society.

 

Of course we have little to go on when explaining why St. Paul was inspired to pen these words. If you are a woman who feels that God wants you to wear long hair, you should obey your conscience.

When the culture is at odds with scripture, I go with scripture.  There are a lot of things that are wrong in western society.  Long hair on a woman still shows submission to God and her husband, and when a man has short hair, it shows he is in submission to his spiritual head, Jesus Christ. 

 

What about women with short hair are they not covered ?

[Guest Butero]

 

 

 

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. 

What about women with short hair is that their covering ?

 

If you read the passage carefully, the answer is no.  Her long hair is a sign of submission, and it is a glory to her.  The same passage says that if a man has long hair, it is a shame for him.  It would show he is in rebellion against his head. 

 

There  are women who have only short hair eg some women in  Africa while their are some women with long hair eg India 

 

What has that got to do with anything?  The Bible says what it says.  There are men with long hair too, many native Americans.  That doesn't make the Word null and void.  This isn't mentioned as a sin issue, but it is something Christians should observe.