To Cover or Not to Cover ?

[Guest Butero]

Then why didn't God tell the Corinthian church what short means and what long means?  It was a letter, and he assumed they knew the difference.  Likewise, I know when I have long hair and when I have short hair. 

 

 

Well, I guess that means that any woman who dresses as a man, wearing shirts/blouses and slacks/jeans, is also a disgrace to her husband.  Strangely, does not God say man looks at the outward part, but God looks at the heart?  If a woman chooses to wear her hair long, so be it, but some prefer it short.  I find no fault or prejudice one way or the other, and I accept God's Word that he looks on the heart.

 

 

At Littlelamseativy, Deuteronomy 22:5 states that a woman dressing like a man is an abomination.  That is an outright sin, as I have pointed out for years.  I am glad you recognize that women who wear slacks and jeans are dressing like a man.  It is nice to see anyone honest enough to admit that.  If you see a man wearing a dress, everyone will admit he is dressed like a woman, but nobody wants to admit women wearing pants are dressing like a man.  I really appreciate your honesty, even if we don't look at this exactly the same. 

 

I do want to point out one thing.  When the Bible says man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, he was speaking about the man's natural stature, or height.  He was speaking of how Saul was a very large man and David was short and didn't look the part of a King.  He wasn't speaking about things he could control, like his hair length or clothes. 

[Guest Butero]

First of all, an anecdotal story about how God used you doesn't take precedence over God's Word, which says it is a shame for a man to have long hair.  Secondly, I am not the one that stated women wearing pants was dressing like men, though I have said that in the past, and wholeheartedly believe it.  Your commentary is **Language**.  It does mean a man dressing like a woman or a woman dressing like a man.  If it meant what your commentary says, that would mean women who wear a military uniform are in sin, and what in the world does it mean for the man wearing a woman's garment?  What kind of garment did the woman wear the man wasn't supposed to wear?  Let me also point something else out.  If it is true that God only looks on the heart and doesn't care how we look on the outside, then a transvestite is approved of God, as are nudists.  After all, that is only the outward appearance. 

Edited October 8, 2014 by Butero

[Guest shiloh357]

Then why didn't God tell the Corinthian church what short means and what long means? . It was a letter, and he assumed they knew the difference.  Likewise, I know when I have long hair and when I have short hair. 

 

But there are some men who think "long hair" is when it touches your shirt collar. My grandfather thought any man who didn't have a crew cut was a hippie The point is that God is NEVER slack on telling us exactly what He wants when it comes to His standards for living.  He is very precise in how He wants things done.

 

If God intends man to wear his hair a certain way, he would, to be consistent with Himself, tell us exactly what "short" means to Him.  It's never arbitrary with God.  He never leaves things up to us to interpret on our own.

 

Long hair is relative and means different things to different people.

[Guest Butero]

But once again, this was a letter to the church at Corinth, and Paul expected them to know what short meant and what long meant.  It is not a sin issue, so I don't think it is that important we know exactly how many inches long the hair must be to be considered long?  If a woman considers her hair long down below her shoulders, fine.  If she considers long down to the floor, fine.  If a man considers his hair long if it is more than a crew cut, fine.  If he considers it long when it is below his shoulders, fine.  It would be more important if this was a sin issue, but it is not.  It is a sign of submission.  I started giving myself a crew cut, and try to keep my hair very short, but I don't think that if a man has his hair somewhat longer than that, it is a shame.  I went to the extreme, but didn't have to.  If a woman wants to keep her hair just past her shoulders in length, and that is long to her, fine.  Another woman may never cut her hair and consider that long.  Most people do know the difference between long and short.  If you ask someone to describe another person, they have little trouble saying if a woman has long or short hair, and the same goes with a man. 

[exrockstar]

@ Golden Eagle, yes, I am still insisting that even though those letters were addressing real churches with real issues, the same principles apply today.  If you have a church today where women have short hair and men have long hair, the exact same teachings apply.  As to some being of Paul and some of Appolos, how does that pertain to us today?  Some are of Calvin, some are of Luther, some are of Wesley, etc.  This is either the Word of God or it is not.  If it is just a bunch of letters from a traveling Apostle to churches, then none of it can be said to be for us today. 

agreed. the passage begins and ends :"

2 I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you.3 But I want you to realize that .....  

 

16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God."

 

Paul wasn't bringing up the holding of a tradition as if he implemented something new. He said he passed them from his traditions of being a life long Jew. We could say that he asks for gentiles to "realize" the reasoning for a tradition then begins to explain. Or we can say that he asks jewish converts to "realize" the meaning of a tradition they've been practicing and asks to continue to practice. 

He ends by saying that this tradition or belief will not be debated through any church that identifies itself as a church of God - past and present seem to be included.Seems rather clear.

 

Men in my circle look presentable by having a nice short haircut. Women have longer hair. We don't get into the inches and who crossed the line. But we're not going to smile upon and embrace a male having shoulder length hair.

[Guest Teditis]

I wonder if Paul would have wanted a Nazarene like Sampson to cut his hair too? 

[Guest shiloh357]

But once again, this was a letter to the church at Corinth, and Paul expected them to know what short meant and what long meant. 

Yes, but the problem is that he is addressing a particular need in their community.  Corinthian men wore long hair in an effeminate way to attract other men.  The cultural context can't be factored out.  When Paul was addressing long hair, he was addressing it within the context of what that issue meant to the original audience.  The long hair issue had more to it than simply the length of hair.

 

The problem I see is that we, too often read these letters as if everything in them was addressed to the church at large, when it wasn't.  Corinth was Paul's problem child and they had a lot of issues to iron out.  We fail to recognize the difference between applicability and relevance.   All Scripture is relevant, but not all Scripture is universally applicable to the Church.  

 

The issue with long hair addressed a specific issue for the Corinthians.  Paul was not setting a universal standard for the whole Church.  This was not a general epistle addressed to everyone.  it was addressed to specific congregation and and while it contains doctrinal matter that applies to all of us, there specific issues addressed like the hair issue that is really for that congregation, not the church at large.

[lmab]

After reading this thread the question comes to mind is that if this is not an issue of cultural context then how did Jesus wear His hair?  Was it long or was it in a brush cut or perhaps a "do" like Elvis wore?  And what about His clothing?  Do you think perhaps He wore jeans and a t-shirt with a blazer or perhaps he wore a full suit with a vest and tie, mabe even a bow tie?  mmm....curious minds want to know! 

[Littlelambseativy]

Boy, Guy Penrod needs to cut his hair because according to some of the writings ......!

[Guest Butero]

Yes, Guy Penrod's hair is a shame.  There is no question about it, and if I was in Bill Gaither's position, he wouldn't have been with my group unless he would agree to cut his hair.  A Nazarite is a unique situation.  If someone wants to bind themselves with a Nazarite vow and hold to it in it's entirety, there is no problem.  Of course, unless it is for life, there comes a time of shaving the head.  If it is for life, then no razor shall ever come upon it.  If any man wishes to bind themselves like that, go for it. 

 

The teachings on hair in Corinthians wasn't just about men trying to attract homosexuals with their long hair.  It was a sign of submission.  A man has short hair, showing he is in submission to his head and the woman has long hair showing she is in submission to her head.  Even if it was to attract homosexuals, we still have many of them today, and some struggling with homosexual desires in the church.  That means the teachings would still apply.