Hair brings spiritual power message. 😳

[good samaritan]

Second, he referred to "his strength" departing him, and not "God" departing him. So some have seen a bit of pride and arrogance here, in that Samson ascribed to himself ("my strength") what should have been ascribed to the Lord, and thus by exalting himself as it were he gets humbled by God removing the divine endowment of strength he previously enjoyed. In other words, he didn't give glory where glory was due and so lost what he had been given.

Very similar to a lady ascribing her hair to her authority. IMO

It seems Sampson viewed his hair as the source of his strength when in fact it was the anointing of God that supplied the strength. People very often seemed to be drawn to rituals and sacraments rather than having a personal relationship with God and giving him the credit directly.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The woman who has short hair dishonors her husband.

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
(1Co 11:2-16)

I cannot find any verse which says "a woman who has short hair dishonours her husband". So your assertion must be a deduction or inference, rather than an authoritative quote.

But is the deduction or inference you have made justified by the data in the text?

Let's look closely:

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. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(1Co 11:5-6)

First of all, the text is limiting the discussion to praying or prophesying. So even if your inference were valid, it would only apply when she prayed or prophesied. So if she just stayed away from the meeting and didn't pray or prophesy, she would not be dishonouring her husband.

But more importantly, I notice the apostle says if she is uncovered it is "even all one as if she were shaven". That means being uncovered is not the exact same thing as being shaven. Rather, it is equivalent to being shaven. Or in other words, it incurs the same shame. Like saying "if a man eats ten plates worth at Golden Corral that is the same as if he were a wild sow." That isn't saying the man is LITERALLY and ACTUALLY a wild sow, but that he is LIKE a wild sow.

Same here. Paul is not saying the woman is LITERALLY and ACTUALLY shaven, but that she is LIKE a woman who is shaven.

Which brings us to the third point. He says if she will not be covered, then she ought to be shorn. Now, to be shorn is to have the hair cut off. If having her hair shorn (cut short) is to be uncovered, then Paul's words make no sense. At best they mean let her keep her short shorn hair! "IF the woman be not covered, THEN let her be shorn."

This is a simple if-then conditional statement. If A, THEN B. This means that A and B are not the exact same thing. Rather, one proceeds from the other. And notice that it is not being uncovered that proceeds from being shorn. It's the other way around. If the woman is uncovered... that is, if FIRST the woman is uncovered. Then let her be shorn... that is, AFTER being uncovered, let her be shorn.

Paul even takes time to say "also" to make sure nobody in America can miss it. If she is uncovered then let her ALSO be shorn. Thus being uncovered and being shorn are not describing the exact same scenario or condition. Only that one (being uncovered) calls for the other (being shorn).

If the woman will not be covered, then cut her hair off. But if that's embarassing (it is) then let her be covered.

So I conclude that your assertion "if a woman has short hair she dishonours her husband" is not only not stated by the text, but is unwarranted as an inference from the text, and in fact shown to be impossible from the text.

Rather, if a woman be uncovered when praying or prophesying, she dishonours her head. Why? Because it's as disgraceful as if she were shaven. Because if she is going to be uncovered, then let her also be shorn. Oh, that's a disgrace to be shorn or shaven? Well, then, better be covered, sister.

Thus, one (having the head uncovered) is seen to be a distinct condition from being shorn or shaven (having short hair, if you will), BUT the one (having the head uncovered) calls for the other (being shorn or shaven), because they are LIKE each other "even all one AS IF". To be uncovered is AS IF one were shorn or shaven.

AS IF...

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

1 Peter 1:12 KJV
Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.

Revelation 8:3-5 KJV
And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. [4] And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand. [5] And the angel took the censer, and filled it with fire of the altar, and cast it into the earth: and there were voices, and thunderings, and lightnings, and an earthquake.

Angels are involved in our worship of God. Also, angels are God's ministers. The ministers of a king are government officials having authority to carry out the various functions of government. So angels are essentially government officials in the Divine Government of God.

Now, 1 Corinthians is primarily about correct church order. The issue of various sects, excommunication, decorum in worship, the Lord's Supper, the open meeting, etc are issues directly related to Paul establishing proper order and conduct in the congregation.

1 Cor 11a especially deals with headship and authority and proper execution of roles in the assembly.

Since angels (heavenly government officials) are present during worship, and since the headcovering issue is a demonstration of headship and authority (an object lesson if you will), it follows that the rules concerning headcovering be observed at such times.

Not as a "lesson to the angels", but in order to make sure the church is actively demonstrating the Divine truths concerning authority and Heaven's rule and jurisdiction among humans. The angels aren't there because they are on vacation and are just "curious". They are in a sense the eyes and ears of the Divine Government, as well as the executive administrators of it. And thus they are the representatives of the King's Heavenly Court.

The word "power" is exousia, and means "authority". The magic hair folks seem to think the word should be dunamis, which means "ability". But the word means authority. The headcovering is the authority, that is to say, the token or sign or badge that represents in a visible tangible way the spiritual authority it represents.

Who's authority? The woman's? Or the man's?

Actually, it signifies GOD'S AUTHORITY. The head of the woman is the man, and the head is to be covered in worship. Showing that man is concealed in worship of God. Man is not on display. The man himself, having his head UNCOVERED, shows or demonstrates that Christ is on display and not concealed, for the head of the man is Christ. Working together , the uncovered male head and covered female head illustrate the truth that Christ is to shine forth and be seen and not flesh or humanity, that humanity is to be subject to and covered by Christ (who is the atonement, or "covering", for the church).

By having the token of authority on her head, she illustrates the principle that her head (man, as representing mankind) is covered by divine authority and subject to the divine government of God.

It has NOTHING to do with special properties or powers concerning a woman's hair. THAT is a common folk belief amongst WITCHES and OCCULTISTS and has no part in the apostolic faith.

Question on God's divine council:

Are the following verses speaking of God's Angelic council?

Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Psalms 82
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Question on God's divine council:

Are the following verses speaking of God's Angelic council?

Genesis 1:26-28
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Psalms 82
God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

I believe the Genesis passage is an example of what is called "The Plural of Majesty", a rhetorical device when a monarch speaks in the plural to refer to their own decision or policy or rule or whatever. The Monarch (King) as head of state is a representation and even in some respects a personification of the whole nation/kingdom. So when the King makes a decision it is the decision of the whole Kingdom, as the King essentially embodies the entirety of government in his person.

I don't know that I would call it the "angelic council", because that implies the angels are advisors to God and offer advice. Perhaps they do, perhaps He deigns to allow them to try out their ideas. But I think the main thing is that when God acts as King He acts on behalf of the whole Kingdom, and His government acts with Him. Same thing as here:

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
(Gen 11:5-7)

Now, when God does something, He not only does it on behalf of the whole Kingdom, but often uses angels to get the job done. So the Plural of Majesty is more than just a semantic thing, it is rooted in a reality of the Monarch acting in unison with His Kingdom.

Now, in the Psalm, the Hebrew reads "Elohim stands in the assembly of El." The Greek and Latin read "God stands in the synagogue/assembly of the gods". The assembly or congregation of El ("God") is obviously Israel, the covenanted people of God, the ekklesia or called out assembly of God. He stands in His assembly, and He judges among the "elohim", or "gods". This term elohim was sometimes applied to the rulers and judges of His people. The word literally means "the powers".

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
(Psa 82:2-8)

Here, the rest of the Psalm demonstrates to whom He is speaking: the rulers and judges of the congregation of God (Israel). He reproves them for being unjust and unrighteous, demands repentance and the rightful execution of justice, and threatens their doom for failing to do so. So the Psalm is speaking of the earthly government of the Kingdom of God, specifically addressed to the earthly "Court" appointed by God to represent His interests in this world. Psalm 82 is in a sense a poetic Old Testament equivalent to the "Letters to the Seven Churches" in Revelation in which God's representatives in the earth are reproved for not doing their duty.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 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. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.
(1Co 11:2-16)

I cannot find any verse which says "a woman who has short hair dishonours her husband". So your assertion must be a deduction or inference, rather than an authoritative quote.

But is the deduction or inference you have made justified by the data in the text?

Let's look closely:

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. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
(1Co 11:5-6)

First of all, the text is limiting the discussion to praying or prophesying. So even if your inference were valid, it would only apply when she prayed or prophesied. So if she just stayed away from the meeting and didn't pray or prophesy, she would not be dishonouring her husband.

But more importantly, I notice the apostle says if she is uncovered it is "even all one as if she were shaven". That means being uncovered is not the exact same thing as being shaven. Rather, it is equivalent to being shaven. Or in other words, it incurs the same shame. Like saying "if a man eats ten plates worth at Golden Corral that is the same as if he were a wild sow." That isn't saying the man is LITERALLY and ACTUALLY a wild sow, but that he is LIKE a wild sow.

Same here. Paul is not saying the woman is LITERALLY and ACTUALLY shaven, but that she is LIKE a woman who is shaven.

Which brings us to the third point. He says if she will not be covered, then she ought to be shorn. Now, to be shorn is to have the hair cut off. If having her hair shorn (cut short) is to be uncovered, then Paul's words make no sense. At best they mean let her keep her short shorn hair! "IF the woman be not covered, THEN let her be shorn."

This is a simple if-then conditional statement. If A, THEN B. This means that A and B are not the exact same thing. Rather, one proceeds from the other. And notice that it is not being uncovered that proceeds from being shorn. It's the other way around. If the woman is uncovered... that is, if FIRST the woman is uncovered. Then let her be shorn... that is, AFTER being uncovered, let her be shorn.

Paul even takes time to say "also" to make sure nobody in America can miss it. If she is uncovered then let her ALSO be shorn. Thus being uncovered and being shorn are not describing the exact same scenario or condition. Only that one (being uncovered) calls for the other (being shorn).

If the woman will not be covered, then cut her hair off. But if that's embarassing (it is) then let her be covered.

So I conclude that your assertion "if a woman has short hair she dishonours her husband" is not only not stated by the text, but is unwarranted as an inference from the text, and in fact shown to be impossible from the text.

Rather, if a woman be uncovered when praying or prophesying, she dishonours her head. Why? Because it's as disgraceful as if she were shaven. Because if she is going to be uncovered, then let her also be shorn. Oh, that's a disgrace to be shorn or shaven? Well, then, better be covered, sister.

Thus, one (having the head uncovered) is seen to be a distinct condition from being shorn or shaven (having short hair, if you will), BUT the one (having the head uncovered) calls for the other (being shorn or shaven), because they are LIKE each other "even all one AS IF". To be uncovered is AS IF one were shorn or shaven.

AS IF...

I agree that this is referring to a second covering. My point is that the woman (whether you believe the passage refers to hair or a second covering) is dishonoring her head. And that her head is her husband.

[good samaritan]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I believe the Genesis passage is an example of what is called "The Plural of Majesty", a rhetorical device when a monarch speaks in the plural to refer to their own decision or policy or rule or whatever. The Monarch (King) as head of state is a representation and even in some respects a personification of the whole nation/kingdom. So when the King makes a decision it is the decision of the whole Kingdom, as the King essentially embodies the entirety of government in his person.

I don't know that I would call it the "angelic council", because that implies the angels are advisors to God and offer advice. Perhaps they do, perhaps He deigns to allow them to try out their ideas. But I think the main thing is that when God acts as King He acts on behalf of the whole Kingdom, and His government acts with Him. Same thing as here:

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
(Gen 11:5-7)

Now, when God does something, He not only does it on behalf of the whole Kingdom, but often uses angels to get the job done. So the Plural of Majesty is more than just a semantic thing, it is rooted in a reality of the Monarch acting in unison with His Kingdom.

Now, in the Psalm, the Hebrew reads "Elohim stands in the assembly of El." The Greek and Latin read "God stands in the synagogue/assembly of the gods". The assembly or congregation of El ("God") is obviously Israel, the covenanted people of God, the ekklesia or called out assembly of God. He stands in His assembly, and He judges among the "elohim", or "gods". This term elohim was sometimes applied to the rulers and judges of His people. The word literally means "the powers".

How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.
(Psa 82:2-8)

Here, the rest of the Psalm demonstrates to whom He is speaking: the rulers and judges of the congregation of God (Israel). He reproves them for being unjust and unrighteous, demands repentance and the rightful execution of justice, and threatens their doom for failing to do so. So the Psalm is speaking of the earthly government of the Kingdom of God, specifically addressed to the earthly "Court" appointed by God to represent His interests in this world. Psalm 82 is in a sense a poetic Old Testament equivalent to the "Letters to the Seven Churches" in Revelation in which God's representatives in the earth are reproved for not doing their duty.

When I read this, I envision a sovereign King over a royal court of his angelic host. But, I understand God to be a omnipresent Spirit filling all the expanse of space, time, and beyond. Jesus Christ is definitely the one seen in the heavenly court in the book of the Revelation. Question, do you believe the physical form of Jesus was before the incarnation? IOW, was the person Jesus Christ presiding over the heavenly court a saying, let us make man in our image?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I agree that this is referring to a second covering. My point is that the woman (whether you believe the passage refers to hair or a second covering) is dishonoring her head. And that her head is her husband.

So, unmarried women can be uncovered?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by good samaritan

When I read this, I envision a sovereign King over a royal court of his angelic host. But, I understand God to be a omnipresent Spirit filling all the expanse of space, time, and beyond. Jesus Christ is definitely the one seen in the heavenly court in the book of the Revelation. Question, do you believe the physical form of Jesus was before the incarnation? IOW, was the person Jesus Christ presiding over the heavenly court a saying, let us make man in our image?

Well, I would say Jehovah God (Who is a Spirit and Who is omnipresent) has a form by which He interacted with creation, and this theophany (sometimes called "the Angel of Jehovah" in the OT and "the Word" by John) incarnated as Jesus in the NT. Thus, the One Who said "Let us make man" etc is Christ. Jesus Christ is the human incarnation ("express image") of the "person" of God.

Jesus' "physical form" came into existence at Bethlehem, but prior to that He sometimes appeared as a man (like with Abraham or Jacob) or a pillar of cloud and fire (like with the Exodus) etc. From the Biblical data it seems that God interacts with His creation by means of some kind of localised presence or manifested form.

[Esaias]

But then, this gets into "what exactly does omnipresence mean?" which being a theological question might kill the popularity of this thread (for the lurkers).

[coksiw]

This is a great commentary on the hair in 1 Cor 11.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html



Also, Bernard says that Chrysostom teaches that Paul in 1 Cor 11 was referring to long hair as the covering, but that's not true:

Bernard says:

“John Chrysostom interpreted Paul’s teaching in I Corinthians 11 to refer to long hair. In a sermon on that chapter, Chrysostom wrote that Paul “both affirms the covering and the hair to be one, and also that she again who is shaven is the same with her whose head is bare. . . . He signifies that not at the time of prayer only but also continually, she ought to be covered. . . . But with regard to the man . . . the wearing long hair he discourages at all times.”13 In the same sermon, Chrysostom compared this teaching with Deuteronomy 22:5, noting that both passages teach a distinction between male and female in appearance.”

Excerpt From
Practical Holiness: A Second Look
David K. Bernard
This material may be protected by copyright.

The portion he is referring to doesn't prove his point, instead, this is what Chrysostom really says:

"For hitherto his discourse was only concerning their not wearing long hair and not covering their heads"

and here, he addressed the point explicitly contradicting Bernard's testimony of Chrysostom entirely:

""And if it be given her for a covering," say you, "wherefore need she add another covering?" That not nature only, but also her own will may have part in her acknowledgment of subjection"

Go check it out yourself: https://biblehub.com/commentaries/ch...nthians/11.htm


This goes in line with the commentary I shared in the first link:

Recently some authors have maintained that when Paul says “her hair is given to her for a covering” he is saying that the hair suffices as a covering, and this interpretation has enjoyed some popular currency, but it cannot be the Apostle’s meaning. There was certainly no need for Paul to convince the Corinthian women that they should not crop their hair. That is not an issue at all here. It is simply taken for granted in verses 5 and 6 that such cropped hair would be disgraceful, and so everyone agrees that a woman’s head should be covered. And if there is something especially suitable about a woman’s head being covered, then she should be glad to wear a headcovering in addition to the long hair. But if she does not like a headcovering, well then, let her shear off her hair also! The argument here involves a rhetorical reductio ad absurdum in which there is an analogy made between headcoverings and hair. These verses make no sense otherwise.

The text is clear as water to me: uncut hair and covered for a woman, and short and uncovered for a man.

The question here is how you apply it. Is the "the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head" the goal, then making the headcovering a cultural implementation of a symbol of being under authority, or is it for all ages regardless of the cultural meaning of a headcovering?

I believe the first. The headcovering was an implementation or cultural expression of being under a husband, and submissive to him during worship. That whatever you did publicly in the congregation, prophesying or praying, was under the approval of the husband. Praying or prophesying without the headcovering, was an cultural expression of being an independent woman, that does thing publicly with or without the husband approval. My argument goes in line with the purpose of it explained in that verse: a token of being under authority.

Nowadays, if you are an unbeliever, and you see a woman with headcovering on the street, you don't associate it with a conservative idea of woman expressing her voluntary submission to her house order, but instead you associate it with some "strange religion". It doesn't carry the same meaning it had back then.

However, I see also good points in those that defend the opposite: that the headcovering is not cultural but still applicable to us in our culture.