Head coverings passage seems contradictory.

[thereselittleflower]

54 minutes ago, Pamelasv said:

Verse 5 says clearly that (I'm not arguing that you need to wear one) every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman who's head is shaved. 

Now that sounds pretty straight forward.  ( now I am not being argumentative, just stating what I see, as in a discussion. No need to get our shorts in a knot).  I see no hidden meaning here. 

BUT in verse 6, For if a woman does not cover her head, let her have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or head shaved, let her cover her head.'  Now here is proving a point, not saying literally she should do that.  That must mean her hair is still long, and it is a shame because she is not wearing a head covering!  

Vs. 15 then says her long hair is given to her for a covering.  See the contradiction? 

Well I sure am. 

 

Ezra said it best Pamelasv - he nailed it.

 

 

[Deborah_]

The normal everyday dress code in the eastern Mediterranean dictated that free men should not cover their heads; married women, on the other hand, covered their hair in order to honour their husbands and to indicate that they were not sexually available. Only prostitutes put their hair on public display.

So a Christian man (unlike the Jews, who cover their heads in God’s presence) worshipped bare-headed to signify his new status in Christ. (II Corinthians 3:16-18) He was not a servant but a son, able to engage with God directly; to cover his head would dishonour the Saviour who had set him free. But a woman uncovering her hair would draw attention to herself - and not in a good way. For Christian women to flout the social convention would not only disgrace their husbands but also bring shame on the church.

 

The woman’s head-covering, far from being a mark of subjugation, was her ‘licence’ to participate in the service on equal terms with the men without causing offence.

 

A shaven head was the punishment for being an adulteress.

[thereselittleflower]

   

53 minutes ago, Deborah_ said:

The normal everyday dress code in the eastern Mediterranean dictated that free men should not cover their heads; married women, on the other hand, covered their hair in order to honour their husbands and to indicate that they were not sexually available. Only prostitutes put their hair on public display.

So a Christian man (unlike the Jews, who cover their heads in God’s presence) worshipped bare-headed to signify his new status in Christ. (II Corinthians 3:16-18) He was not a servant but a son, able to engage with God directly; to cover his head would dishonour the Saviour who had set him free. But a woman uncovering her hair would draw attention to herself - and not in a good way. For Christian women to flout the social convention would not only disgrace their husbands but also bring shame on the church.

 

The woman’s head-covering, far from being a mark of subjugation, was her ‘licence’ to participate in the service on equal terms with the men without causing offence.

 

A shaven head was the punishment for being an adulteress.

This is a great demonstration of why we can't approach scriptures from a 21st century mindset divorced from the people's, culture, and language the scripture were written in and expect to come up with a correct understanding of what was said.

Thank you for sharing that.

 

[Pamelasv]

Yes, thankyou for that insight. It is always good to know what was happening in the culture back then!  Feel free to share that kind of information in the future, even tho I must say: 

Still, I dont understand why that last verse says long hair is given to her for a covering.  Oh well.  Nobody really knows. 

[thereselittleflower]

21 minutes ago, Pamelasv said:

Yes, thankyou for that insight. It is always good to know what was happening in the culture back then!  Feel free to share that kind of information in the future, even tho I must say: 

Still, I dont understand why that last verse says long hair is given to her for a covering.  Oh well.  Nobody really knows. 

Remember this was cultural.

In that context, her own hair as a covering would have been to her husband who would see her without her head covering.

 

[Pamelasv]

Ok. I guess I just wasnt convinced.  And it very well may be correct.  The fact that this is not verbalized by Paul, makes me consider that it may not be correct.  

Thankyou for all your thoughts and your insights.  Feel free to come back to other questions I may post.  It is good.  

[WilliamL]

3 hours ago, Pamelasv said:

Ok. I guess I just wasnt convinced.  And it very well may be correct.  The fact that this is not verbalized by Paul, makes me consider that it may not be correct.  

I'm with you, Pamelasv. To me, the passage is way too ambiguous. Maybe it made sense to the Corinthians...

One other point to make that hasn't been mentioned is, the "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established" principle. Neither Paul nor anyone else ever talks about this again in the NT. So it -- whatever it is -- cannot be established as doctrine.