Uncut Hair

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Steve Epley

Newman listed about 20 lexicons EVERYONE of them included cut or cut off. She and I had a “vigorous” discussion about cut off. In my simple Ky reasoning I asked her if a woman goes to the beauty shop and they cut it is the hair on the floor cut off?

1Cor.11
[6] 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

When I'm in Kentucky, this means that if a woman is not going to be covered, (referring to a second covering), let her also be shorn (let her also have her hair cut); but if it is a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. (IF it is shameful for her to have her hair cut or even shaven, which seems to be a given, let her also be covered, with a second covering).

It means the same when I'm in NYC.

Otherwise it would say that if a woman be not covered let her also have her hair cut. This does not make any sense. If her hair was cut, and the hair was her covering, then for her to be not covered and to have cut hair would mean the same thing, and it is obviously NOT used that way.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

It would have been awesome if someone had saved that conversation.

So, not remembering the details, are you saying that you place shave, shorn and long as defining "uncut"? I don't know why I am asking you that question. I already know your answer. Even though I am not arguing either way, RDP's post is defining I Cor 11:6 for shorn and shaven. We were actually talking about "long" in I Cor 11:15.

Anyway, aside from that, I was noticing in I Cor. 11:5 it begins by talking to a man about having his head "covered". I was surprised to see Aquila post the same view that I was seeing - "2. Men covering their head in worship dishonours their head. (because to wear a head covering is to pray like a Jew, one still under the Law)."

It has the sense of a cultural issue going on concerning the Law. Why would the passage begin with that idea if it wasn't about the Jewish faith under the Law?

Jews did not start requiring head coverings for men until the early medieval period. I had a thread or a post awhile back with the documentation for that.

Scripturally, the priests had their heads covered when ministering (illustrating that under the old covenant God's image and glory was concealed) and thus, under the new, men are to be uncovered (illustrating that the image and glory of God - Christ - is no longer concealed).

Regardless, Paul's arguments are based in Scripture and nature. Those arguments are still valid today. Therefore his commands regarding head covering are still applicable today.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

You know what? Please disregard the post. I need to check my memory board, since I typed all of what you quoted, from memory, but now, checking into the verses more deeply, I see several places where I have erred or conflated two separate issues. My apologies to all.

If or when I can make better sense of what I was trying to communicate, I will report back.

ROFL! No backtracking now, cat's out of the bag, toothpaste been squeezed out, etc. The passage does, as Amanah noticed, support head covering. Well, for proper women, anyway. Having her head uncovered indicated she was under suspicions of impropriety...

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

ROFL! No backtracking now, cat's out of the bag, toothpaste been squeezed out, etc. The passage does, as Amanah noticed, support head covering. Well, for proper women, anyway. Having her head uncovered indicated she was under suspicions of impropriety...

Good one.

My backtrack was more about what I wrote regarding Numbers 5 and 6. Made some errors, there.

[Aquila]

I believe it is an ancient modesty standard, not an injunction to force head coverings on women.

Think about it, the head of every woman is her husband. An immodest woman, be she refusing a head covering in Paul's day, or insisting on wearing an immodestly low cut blouse today, such a woman dishonors her head (her husband).

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

I believe it is an ancient modesty standard, not an injunction to force head coverings on women.

Think about it, the head of every woman is her husband. An immodest woman, be she refusing a head covering in Paul's day, or insisting on wearing an immodestly low cut blouse today, such a woman dishonors her head (her husband).

Head covering was not a universal standard of modesty in Corinth, let alone the rest of civilization. Paul was not talking about modest or societal norms, but Scriptural truths and their practical applications. Your approach is the same used by Charles Finney, who argued that his "altar call" was a modern equivalent to apostolic baptism, and therefore baptism could be replaced by the altar call as the means of securing a decision for Christ.

Biblical commands cannot be replaced by what we think are "modernized substitutes". That's Pharisaism, pure and simple, whereby a loophole is found to justify not doing what is actually written.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Head covering was not a universal standard of modesty in Corinth, let alone the rest of civilization. Paul was not talking about modest or societal norms, but Scriptural truths and their practical applications. Your approach is the same used by Charles Finney, who argued that his "altar call" was a modern equivalent to apostolic baptism, and therefore baptism could be replaced by the altar call as the means of securing a decision for Christ.

Biblical commands cannot be replaced by what we think are "modernized substitutes". That's Pharisaism, pure and simple, whereby a loophole is found to justify not doing what is actually written.

Finney, really? No one said anything about Finney. Lol

Phrases indicating an uncovered woman is as a woman shorn or shaven (the method of shaming adulteresses), that a woman dishonors her head (her husband), because of the angels, who were commonly believed to observe worship and be insulted by immodesty and impropriety, references to the natural glory of a woman's hair, and the shame of a man with long effeminate locks...all appear to point to modesty, subjection, and propriety in gatherings for worship.

In essence, we see Paul admonishing a modesty standard in the Corinthian church in question. Modesty is indeed admonished in Scripture. And so if any pastor establishes a standard to bring modesty, as it relates to a given time and place, such is justified.

[rdp]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

That is interesting. When they "applied" the definition, they take the view as a "probably".

*However, these linguists stated that the "literal" meaning is simply "to cut the hair."

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Thank you for this. I don't believe anyone has disagreed that shorn or shaven means to cut or cut off. It's a no-brainer. Shaven = xurao; shorn = keiro and long, which doesn't mean any of those two things is - komao.

*God's word proclaims that it's a "disgrace" for a woman "to cut" her hair. V. 7 provides the principle meaning why (i.e., man = glory of God; woman = glory of man).

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

However, I can see how there are factions who believe that we still should wear veils. Never did see that as strongly before, not that I take that position.

*The preposition "anti" in v. 15 makes clear that a woman's uncut hair is the "veil" Paul is describing. Interestingly, there are 2 different Greek nouns for "hair" & "head" in this unit of passages. What does a veil cover - the hair or the head? Obviously the hair. But Paul is describing the covering of the "head," not the "hair."

*Further, we are not informed what the object of the covering is until v. 15 - "hair." We have verbal activity of "covering" & "uncovering" up until v. 15 - where the object-noun informs us what this "covering" is. Have tons of exegetical info. on this that I will try to look up later .

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Mainly, because it doesn't make sense to say, "If a woman has cut hair, she might has well be shorn or shaven." If her hair is already cut, that wouldn't make sense, so it must mean a veil.

*I understand, but most of this is addressed above. Again, the actual object noun is not identified until v. 15.

*Let me do some digging to further demonstrate what I'm saying (I have a sentence diagram that I can post if I can figure it out). God bless.

[TGBTG]

1 cor 11:5-6 (kjv)
5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

Uncut hair translation
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with cut hair dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman cut her hair, let her also cut her hair:

Veiled hair translation
5 But every woman that prays or prophesies with not using a veil dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman is not using a veil, let her also cut her hair:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

1 cor 11:5-6 (kjv)
5 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.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn:

Uncut hair translation
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with cut hair dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman cut her hair, let her also cut her hair:

Veiled hair translation
5 But every woman that prays or prophesies with not using a veil dishonoureth her head: for that is the same as if she cut her hair
6 For if the woman is not using a veil, let her also cut her hair: