To cover or not to cover ?

[Guest HisG]

Don't forget Butero,

Jesus mentioned that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of mans heart but originally it wasn't so.

Situations do change it seems - and it was allowed, however I stand with Jesus in what he says.

I do believe that hair length is not the issue - it's the covering.

Personally I wouldn't be telling any woman to cover their hair because of no fault of their own.

[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?

[Guest HisG]

I didn't say coverings were irrelevant.

I said womens hair length.

The long hair is given as a covering. That is what it says.

I'm sure it says "if" a woman has long hair.

If she has long hair, it is a glory to her - nobody else but her -

But her hair is given her for a covering.

The hair is the covering period.

It doesn't say "her long hair is given her for a covering".

[OakWood]

¹⁴ Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

 

1st Corinthians 11

 

 

Phil, get your hair cut!

[Guest HisG]

Phil, have a shave!

[saved34]

I believe I already told you that Biblically they are not considered to have their head covered, just as a man can have some hair and be considered Biblically to be uncovered.  It just has to be short.  BTW, I wouldn't feel right wearing a hat when I pray.  I agree with John DB on that, and I already came to the same conclusions a long time ago.

 

You mean in Church or praying period? We are instructed to pray without ceasing. Pray in season and out of season. Not to be nasty or anything but some of my most fervent prayers have been in the bathroom. The flesh means nothing, we worship God in Spirit and truth. Maybe in Church in the midst of the congregation it is appropriate to not pray while wearing a hat, but in our everyday lives we pray at all times. The instructions given in Corinth are mostly dealing with "when the whole church come together". 

[nebula]

There  are women who have only short hair eg some women in  Africa...

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. 

 

I believe Izzel was referring to the fact that the women in some parts of Africa cannot grow long hair.

[Guest HisG]

There are women who have only short hair eg some women in Africa...

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.

I believe Izzel was referring to the fact that the women in some parts of Africa cannot grow long hair.

They needn't try to anyway - short frizzy hair isn't designed to hang.

The purpose is to keep hair off the neck in hot climates. The curl allows air to pas over the scalp to cool the head.

God is the master architect.

[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, wasn't 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. Pernasssis 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 epistles that Paul wrote were ususally in response to issues related to individual congregations.  Paul's letters were not (with the exception of Ephesians) encyclical letters  written to all of the Churches.   Paul's letter to the church ot Corinth was a personal letter, not a doctrinal treatise.  He was not writing to 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.

[nebula]

 

There are women who have only short hair eg some women in Africa...

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.

I believe Izzel was referring to the fact that the women in some parts of Africa cannot grow long hair.

They needn't try to anyway - short frizzy hair isn't designed to hang.

The purpose is to keep hair off the neck in hot climates. The curl allows air to pass over the scalp to cool the head.

God is the master architect.

 

That's neat!

 

 

So, yeah, point being, kind of hard for women whose hair just won't grow long to "do as the Bible says" here.