Uncut Hair

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Godsdrummer

Was not sure exactly what he meant. Some times these discussions, can get hard to follow.

You may be right though. He'll clarify it.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

the first half is about veils

ESV
1Co 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,
1Co 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
1Co 11:6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.
1Co 11:7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man.
1Co 11:8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man.
1Co 11:9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.
1Co 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;
1Co 11:12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.
1Co 11:13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered?
1Co 11:14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,
1Co 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

These are the footnotes for the NIV

4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 But every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering of hair dishonors her head—she is just like one of the “shorn women.” 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair; but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair

[mfblume]

When it says a woman ought TO COVER her head it is an action verb. Hair cannot work in that fashion. Only a veiling works. What action does a woman do to have long hair? It's inaction. Don't cut if it's hair, not action like the text states.

[good samaritan]

Do you teach that a woman should wear a veil when she prays or prophesies? If not, what is your basis that this ordinance is no longer applicable?

[good samaritan]

I think we can all agree that these verses are controversial. I personally would not want anyone to follow a doctrine they totally disagree with. I would not be true to myself to proclaim a message or doctrine that I personally do not see personally. In short, if you disagree with uncut hair, it is your decision and I don't condemn. Many people in various denominations comply with ordinances only for the sake of fitting in, but they truly don't agree with it (It is usually very short-lived). People need to search the scriptures and be led of the Spirit.

Because this scripture has multiple reasonable interpretations (long hair, uncut hair, veiled head), we should be careful how we judge on this issue.

1 cor. 5:1Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. 2 And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. 3 But if any man love God, the same is known of him.

Charity(agape/love) toward man and God should be fundamental to every doctrine. I respect the different views. Although, we disagree it should not be a dividing factor among us. I do think it is good to contend for the best interpretation of these hard understood scriptures. I respect every post that has been posted on this thread no matter the differences.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Does not Jewish men wear head coverings when they prophesy as well as the ladies? It is very likely that Paul covered his head with an external covering when he prayed. the covering he was addressing would then have to be long hair or he would be contradicting himself. B.T.W. if it was a veil then that is what we should be teaching our ladies to do.

I posted about that awhile back on another thread. The Jewish custom of men covering their heads during prayer was a medieval development. I'll try to find that post, it was documented by a Rabbi (not a Christian). Paul's teaching was distinct from both Jewish and Gentile practices of the time.

[Esaias]

Found it.

Originally Posted by Esaias

http://www.jewishmag.com/122mag/kippa%5Ckippa.htm

" However, while the kippah plays a prominent role in the contemporary Jewish world, the obligation to wear a head covering has its origin in regional customs, rather than halakhah (Jewish law). Indeed, it is due largely to its status as minhag (Jewish custom) that a wide variety of head coverings have been accepted as kippot.
...

In the Middle Ages, French and Spanish rabbis introduced the practice of covering one's head during prayer and Torah study, and Maimonides (1135-1204) similarly ruled that a Jewish man should cover his head during prayer (Mishne Torah, Ahavah, Hilkhot Tefilah 5:5). These rulings do not, however, address specifically the wearing of a kippah at all times, and in purely halakhic terms (as stated by Maimonides), it seems that kippot were not required, but strongly recommended during prayer.
...

In thirteenth-century Germany, for instance, Jewish boys were not required to wear kippot when they were called to the Torah. In contrast, seventeenth-century Russian scholar David Haley suggested that Jews should always keep their heads covered in order to distinguish themselves from the Christian majority. "

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

Do you teach that a woman should wear a veil when she prays or prophesies? If not, what is your basis that this ordinance is no longer applicable?

Culture. It means nothing in our culture to see a woman praying with a veil on. But in Israel it meant a LOT! Sinners knew what it meant. Paul wrote rebuking them as though they knew already what the procedure was. And they did not get it from Law. So, where did they get it? CULTURE. And it was so part of that culture that is warranted a reprimand from the apostle for the women to stop shirking it.

The entire chapter starts out with a continued thought from chapter 10, which is about not offending others. The sinners of the day would shake their heads at the unveiled women, for they knew a covering meant submission, and a godly woman should be submitted to order, especially if she believes in God. Paul said it was related to a spiritual order of headship.

Chapter 10 says give none offence. THAT is the issue.

And Paul starts ch 11 with saying they need to follow him --- in what ways? NOT OFFENDING. North Americans have it totally wrong fro the most part because the head covering is not a cultural thing here. Anyway, my two cents' worth.

[Esaias]

It means quite a bit in our culture! When many people see a modestly dressed woman with a head covering they KNOW she is a devout woman. And no, my wife and daughters have never been mistaken for Muslims! People have always thought they were either Pentecostal or Anabaptist.

[Esaias]

As for it being controversial... there has NEVER been any dispute about this chapter until the last century and a half among Westerns.

Prior to that ALL Christians practiced Paul's teachings on head coverings, and they did it because it was Biblical, not because it was cultural.