Bible Study should women wear head covering and men wear beards ? proof?

[Edward]

I also still don't quite get the idea that it was a shame for a woman to have her head shaven/uncovered.

Me either brother. Long hair is the glory of a woman. Long Hair is very feminine and attractive. I understand why women like to cut their hair as they get older though. It's hard to care for and their not on the market anymore anyway. (Already married), however,

Perhaps this is all meant to allow a woman to direct glory to God and Christ instead of her husband (symbolized by her head), or, if husband-less, glory to God and Christ instead of her own self (symbolized by her hair).

...this does make sense. It could be a distraction for some in church, even the husband. God's a jealous God and it's not kosher to be admiring his handiwork instead of worshiping Him.

 

[Sinthesis]

Me either brother. Long hair is the glory of a woman. Long Hair is very feminine and attractive. I understand why women like to cut their hair as they get older though. It's hard to care for and their not on the market anymore anyway. (Already married), however,



...this does make sense. It could be a distraction for some in church, even the husband. God's a jealous God and it's not kosher to be admiring his handiwork instead of worshiping Him.

I'm not talking about physical attributes as being distracting. Instead I mean spiritual glory attributed to a person other than The Father, Son, or Holy Ghost. Such as when one pledges their allegiance to a leader instead of our God directing that leader.

1Co 11:1 ¶ Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.​

This would be a problem if we primarily identified ourselves with Paul rather than Christ. So we (as a figurative 'woman/wife' to Paul's 'man/husband') cover Paul to direct Glory to Christ.

 

[About the Son of God]

I'm not talking about physical attributes as being distracting.

Indeed, I was the one who brought up physical distractions, and seductions, as something I have observed in modern day churches, wherein a woman wishes to gain attention from an unmarried pastor.

But in light of the Nazarite vows which I think women could take at the time -- and which is something I hadn't read over carefully at the time I made my original comment, it's difficult to see how the hair (or head) figures into such a situation. In general, seduction is oriented to getting men to notice the bodice, or things from the neck down. Pornography, in general -- is faceless sex. So -- a woman who is "shorn" vs. a woman with long hair, are both something I would need to think about.... Edward's comment that women with long hair are very attractive, is definitely a complicating issue with my original thought; for Paul compares the hair to being covered. But in terms of physical attraction, I doubt hair and a hood/covering have the same effect on a man who beholds the woman.

I think Reba mentioned "Mary" having supposedly worn a covering, and that Reba once wore coverings because of that kind of piety; and even in the most ancient of paintings (eg: Priscilla catacombs), I can see what looks like the traditional cloak that Mary supposedly wore with a hood. Those paintings date from the early 200's, so around ~170 years after Jesus died. Mary, on account of Luke 1:34, is often understood to have taken a vow of consecration ; for her betrothal to Joseph would have nicely solved her dillema mentioned there otherwise, and she would have had no reason to ask the question of the Angel, if she did not have a vow of a consecrated virgin.

So, that's another thread of traditional evidence (although weak) that consecration and hoods go together. If it were more like 80 years after Christ, I would think the evidence fairly strong that hoods and consecrations go together.

Hmmm....
I like the gist of your thought, Sinthesis.
But there is an issue with Paul, when I wonder sometimes if he is being sarcastic.
In the early part of Corinthians, Paul is saying how glad he is that he baptized no one (or rather, nearly no one 1Corinthians 1:13-15), because of the favoritism that is going on; but in the very passage you cite, he suddenly switches to asking for something of a fan-club. Follow me, as I follow Christ --or perhaps, because "I AM of Christ, follow me"; rather than saying the far more simple -- "we all follow Christ!".

Paul is definitely placing himself, in some way, between the Corinthians and the annointing eg; "Christ", and I wonder exactly why he chose those words.

 

[Leah781]

Leah, You have not posted one scripture that supports any of your conditions for when to wear a headcovering, especially in connecting it to baptism and male baptism. These sound like man-made laws.

The idea of headship pertains not only to the marriage arrangement but also the congregational arrangement. Within that context a women shows honor and respect to her husband and to men in the congregation, because they are the ones who should be taking the spiritual lead. If a man is not baptized than he is not a true member of the Christian congregation. He cannot spiritually lead anyone. A woman who prays in front of such a man does not need to wear a head covering.


Here are scriptures that show that men are to take the spiritual lead 1Timothy 2:11,12, 1Timothy 3:1-7. Therefore if a woman is praying and prophesying she would wear a head cover or she would be dishonoring her head 1 Corinthians 11:3-5. If a man wears a head covering when praying and prophesying he dishonors his head. Why is this so? Because he dishonors the arrangement that God has put in place for the Christian congregation. The arrangement is that men should take the spiritual lead. Normally there would be no need for a woman to wear head covering while attending church because she is not taking the lead.


At 1 Corinthians 11:13-15 Paul calls attention to the naturally long hair of a woman. It is a God-given reminder that the woman is by nature subject to the man. She should, therefore, acknowledge this when performing what are customarily the man’s duties in the Christian congregation, and she should wear some form of head covering besides her hair, which she normally always has. She will thereby show that she recognizes the God-ordained headship principle and that she makes a distinction between her normal daily activities and the performing of special duties in the congregation when a male is not present.




(1 Corinthians 11:13-15) . . .Judge for yourselves: Is it fitting for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that long hair is a dishonor to a man, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her instead of a covering.


Although I know you may not agree; I hope this clarifies what I previously said. If you have a further question just ask.

 

[About the Son of God]

But Leah, what does mere nature have to do with God?
Is not man fallen in nature ?

So, why would you take Paul's statement in 1Corinthians 11, as definitive of how to dress when dealing with God?
What scripture or logic could Paul be possibly drawing on as the fundamental basis of his statement about "nature"?

I don't recall Adam or Eve -- the prototypical man, and woman -- the very EXAMPLE of creation, and created order, having anything said about length of their hair, or of baldness, or of a covering put on either of their heads.

So, I don't see that hair or covering, is clearly an issue of created nature.
Do you think, Paul, is then talking about fallen nature?

If so, then -- I see only that when A&E fell into sin, that their nature was wounded, and that they 'covered' themselves to hide their nakedness. But that covering is true both of the Man and the Woman. (Genesis 3:7, plural 'them' ) Again, In the first generation of Levitical priests, God had them wear linen vestments to cover their nakedness in likeness of what both Adam and Eve had done: Exodus 28:42, but the high priest had to do more, for he was to wear both a crown and a mitre upon the head which is obviously a double "covering": Exodus 29:6.

And, clearly right there in Exodus 29:6, prayer was going on -- a prayer for the consecration of a priest and his family by the name of Aaron by the pouring of oils over their heads. (Christ / Chrism / oil are synonymous signs in Greek). and that apparently happened WHILE Aaron (not the others) wore a head covering. EG: So I Note: A man's head is "Christ" can also mean a man's head is oiled; for that is where the oil went. ( A man's head is Christ. )

So, again -- I don't see how these disparate quotes you've picked show anything that is eternal or enduring about the signs worn on the head, by either man or woman. How do you explain them, and how they show the fullfillment of the scriptures which went before? ( Christ came to fullfill the law of Moses, and everything the prophets said. )

Paul clearly says that not having a covering is the same as not having hair. ( 1Corinthians 11:5-6 )
Man is to have hair, and crowns, and miters under certain circumstances; as outlined -- and at other times he is not.
I thought that perhaps in Paul's day, only a man's head was christened with oil, and perhaps the anointing of women was only on the chest/heart as is sometimes done in christian baptisms; but modern day practices/traditions in no church seems to have strictly preserved any tradition like that ; and I find it strange that such an observance would disappear in all christian churches if it held any real significance. Have I overlooked something?

And regarding Paul's logic, I find it terribly interesting that Sampson, in the book of Judges, as a Nazarite was consecrated from the womb (a lifelong Nazarite not a temporary one like Jesus might have been, when he chose to say "I will not drink again" just before he was crucified. Nazorean, Nazarite; ) But once consecrated, a Nazorite was not to cut his hair or drink strong drink for these would both be signs of defilement, and perhaps he could die. ( Matthew 27:34, John 19:30 ) That's why cutting of a man's hair is also sometimes a sign of defilement (especially for a permanent Nazarite, not a temporary one which has completed their vow), and when Sampson's hair was cut -- his vow as a Nazarite was visibly being proclaimed as broken; thus Samson lost his powers from God when he was defiled and had his hair cut: Judges 16:17, Judges 16:19, and his abandonment by God/angels strangely did not reverse until the scriptures note that his hair began to grow back: Judges 16:22. (Even if it's not the "real" reason... it's noted as a sign, just before his strength returns. A sign to give him hope with which to pray, for faith is the hope of things unseen.)

And it is then, that I suppose the angels came to support Sampson again, when they saw the hair on his head and gave him superhuman strength. Judges 16:30 , but none the less -- he too died.

Therefore:
Paul's statement, can't in general be shown to reflect how God treats man and women on account of their hair, or what God really thinks of hair. For the idea of what hair means changes with time and context.

Sampson, a lifelong Nazarite -- was shamed when his head was shaven, and glorified when his hair was long.
With Moses, though, I think the situation is quite possibly the opposite. And some historical references about Jesus indicate that he had long hair (by our standards, for I don't know how 'long' is considered long in Judean days...) at the time he died. The so called, shroud of Tourin, is of a first century Jewish man crucified by the Romans, and clearly reveals a man with a substantial amount of hair. Whether it's Jesus or not doesn't affect my point, for it shows that Jewish males did have significant amounts of hair in Jesus' day ; so that the practice of the Nazarite happened in Jesus' day too; even possibly to the moment of his crucifixion. (Matthew 26:29)

 

[Leah781]

But Leah, what does mere nature have to do with God?
Is not man fallen in nature ?

So, why would you take Paul's statement in 1Corinthians 11, as definitive of how to dress when dealing with God?
What scripture or logic could Paul be possibly drawing on as the fundamental basis of his statement about "nature"?

I don't recall Adam or Eve -- the prototypical man, and woman -- the very EXAMPLE of creation, and created order, having anything said about length of their hair, or of baldness, or of a covering put on either of their heads.

So, I don't see that hair or covering, is clearly an issue of created nature.
Do you think, Paul, is then talking about fallen nature?

If so, then -- I see only that when A&E fell into sin, that their nature was wounded, and that they 'covered' themselves to hide their nakedness. But that covering is true both of the Man and the Woman. (Genesis 3:7, plural 'them' ) Again, In the first generation of Levitical priests, God had them wear linen vestments to cover their nakedness in likeness of what both Adam and Eve had done: Exodus 28:42, but the high priest had to do more, for he was to wear both a crown and a mitre upon the head which is obviously a double "covering": Exodus 29:6.

And, clearly right there in Exodus 29:6, prayer was going on -- a prayer for the consecration of a priest and his family by the name of Aaron by the pouring of oils over their heads. (Christ / Chrism / oil are synonymous signs in Greek). and that apparently happened WHILE Aaron (not the others) wore a head covering. EG: So I Note: A man's head is "Christ" can also mean a man's head is oiled; for that is where the oil went. ( A man's head is Christ. )

So, again -- I don't see how these disparate quotes you've picked show anything that is eternal or enduring about the signs worn on the head, by either man or woman. How do you explain them, and how they show the fullfillment of the scriptures which went before? ( Christ came to fullfill the law of Moses, and everything the prophets said. )

Paul clearly says that not having a covering is the same as not having hair. ( 1Corinthians 11:5-6 )
Man is to have hair, and crowns, and miters under certain circumstances; as outlined -- and at other times he is not.
I thought that perhaps in Paul's day, only a man's head was christened with oil, and perhaps the anointing of women was only on the chest/heart as is sometimes done in christian baptisms; but modern day practices/traditions in no church seems to have strictly preserved any tradition like that ; and I find it strange that such an observance would disappear in all christian churches if it held any real significance. Have I overlooked something?

And regarding Paul's logic, I find it terribly interesting that Sampson, in the book of Judges, as a Nazarite was consecrated from the womb (a lifelong Nazarite not a temporary one like Jesus might have been, when he chose to say "I will not drink again" just before he was crucified. Nazorean, Nazarite; ) But once consecrated, a Nazorite was not to cut his hair or drink strong drink for these would both be signs of defilement, and perhaps he could die. ( Matthew 27:34, John 19:30 ) That's why cutting of a man's hair is also sometimes a sign of defilement (especially for a permanent Nazarite, not a temporary one which has completed their vow), and when Sampson's hair was cut -- his vow as a Nazarite was visibly being proclaimed as broken; thus Samson lost his powers from God when he was defiled and had his hair cut: Judges 16:17, Judges 16:19, and his abandonment by God/angels strangely did not reverse until the scriptures note that his hair began to grow back: Judges 16:22. (Even if it's not the "real" reason... it's noted as a sign, just before his strength returns. A sign to give him hope with which to pray, for faith is the hope of things unseen.)

And it is then, that I suppose the angels came to support Sampson again, when they saw the hair on his head and gave him superhuman strength. Judges 16:30 , but none the less -- he too died.

Therefore:
Paul's statement, can't in general be shown to reflect how God treats man and women on account of their hair, or what God really thinks of hair. For the idea of what hair means changes with time and context.

Sampson, a lifelong Nazarite -- was shamed when his head was shaven, and glorified when his hair was long.
With Moses, though, I think the situation is quite possibly the opposite. And some historical references about Jesus indicate that he had long hair (by our standards, for I don't know how 'long' is considered long in Judean days...) at the time he died. The so called, shroud of Tourin, is of a first century Jewish man crucified by the Romans, and clearly reveals a man with a substantial amount of hair. Whether it's Jesus or not doesn't affect my point, for it shows that Jewish males did have significant amounts of hair in Jesus' day ; so that the practice of the Nazarite happened in Jesus' day too; even possibly to the moment of his crucifixion. (Matthew 26:29)

Yes I agree that man became fallen in nature after Adam and Eve sinned. Although this doesn’t pertain to the issue nor does the Mosaic Law play apart in the issue of whether a Christian woman should wear head covering. The scriptures that you sighted about men wearing head covering in the Old Testament would not apply to the Christian congregation. Also there were no Nazarites within the Christian congregation. Jesus was under the Mosaic law covenant but we are not.

Headship has to do with two different aspects, one being that a woman shows headship to her husband within the marriage arrangement by being submissive to his authority as head of the household. Secondly a woman shows honor and subjection to men within the Christian congregation. This is done by not usurping the role of the men in the congregation. A woman is not to preside over the congregation as a pastor. If she does pray or prophecy she would wear head covering to show her acknowledgment of God’s arrangement and her subjection to it. For reasons why a woman may take on the duty that requires her to wear head covering please read my original post.

What has helped me to better understand Paul’s counsel, specifically 1Corinthians 11:6 is to look into the history and culture of the people living in Corinth at the time Paul wrote 1 Corinthians. A woman in those times caught committing adultery or fornication were punished by having their hair shaved off. Paul apparently draws on this circumstance for illustration, showing that a woman in the Christian congregation who would pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, even though she had her hair as a covering, might as well go the whole way and show her shame in disrespecting God’s headship principle by having her hair completely shaved off.

Also within the Corinthian community pagan priestesses would remove their veils and let their hair hang down when claiming to be under divine inspiration. Such a practice in the Christian congregation would be disgraceful and contrary to God’s arrangement of headship and subjection. Apparently some women in the Corinthian congregation were in need of this specific counsel so Paul gave it.

 

[About the Son of God]

. Also there were no Nazarites within the Christian congregation. Jesus was under the Mosaic law covenant but we are not.

Ahh... ypu must not have been reading my earlier posts... because Hebrew converts to Christianity, often did follow the rituals of Moses, and even stayed in the temple at the set times of prayer up and until the temples destruction, for many years after Jesus died and rose again. It's not because they were "under" the law, but because they were free to do so -- and did.

So, I might agree with you that Gentile's didn't tend to be Nazarites who shaved their hair when taking a vow ... but where do you get the idea that there weren't Jewish Christian nazirs, eg: Christians who did shave heads and/or grow their hair when taking vows? I think there were certainly Christians who still took vows ... !

I mean: The etymology of the word, Nazarite, itself is simply the Hebrew word for a person who is consecrated, as any google search can discover:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
"Nazarite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated".

There's also another important detail in the article:

In Modern Hebrew the word "nazir" is commonly used for monks, both Christian and Buddhist - this meaning having largely displaced the original Biblical meaning.

And let me add another Christian detail to the discussion: one additional method of consecration is to be christened (oiled).

So, where do you get the idea that there are no Christian Nazirs from the bible?
Being a nazarite is voluntary, not a requirement of the mosaic law. No one has to be under the law to take a vow of consecration to God !!

That's why I pointed out earlier that Paul, himself, -- as a Christian, not as a Jew, shaved his head when he consecrated himself for taking a vow: Acts 18:18, Acts 21:23-24

I don't know of any commentator who doesn't realize that Paul took a vow of consecration that at very least imitated, the Jewish law:

http://pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info/pauls-nazirite-vow-acts-18.html

And, since Paul did it -- other Christians can too; So what's so wrong with "imitating" Paul's taking of a nazorite style vow ? (Paul was nearly bald, apparently -- so most people imitating him try to imitate pattern baldness)....

1Corinthians 4:16

Isn't that what it's all about -- imitating Paul?
Paul did command that even the woman ought to be shaven, after all.

And... Here's a christian that clearly imitated the hair cutting part (tonsure), hundreds of years after Jesus; so I'm sure some Christians still do it today.

 

[jasonc]

I shave my head once a month but not for being a nazirite

 

[About the Son of God]

I shave my head once a month but not for being a nazirite

That may be, but just to make sure I understand you: have you become dedicated to a task, and shave your head as part of a ritual where you had to take an oath at the beginning of your service ? For if you took an oath, then you are nazir according to the basic meaning of the word -- but if you didn't take an oath, then you're not dedicated/set apart for any specific task, eg: not nazir. That's true whether or not you are a nazarite in the Old Testament sense of the word and won't drink alcohol while on duty, and don't go to the Jerusalem temple to burn your hair afterward.

So, yeah -- there is a difference between shaving because you want to, and continuing to shave because of an oath / consecration.
It's just that lots of Christians, throughout history, have shaven their heads because of various oaths they took ; and I think we ought to keep that tradition in mind when reading Paul.

 

[jasonc]

That may be, but just to make sure I understand you: have you become dedicated to a task, and shave your head as part of a ritual where you had to take an oath at the beginning of your service ? For if you took an oath, then you are nazir according to the basic meaning of the word -- but if you didn't take an oath, then you're not dedicated/set apart for any specific task, eg: not nazir. That's true whether or not you are a nazarite in the Old Testament sense of the word and won't drink alcohol while on duty, and don't go to the Jerusalem temple to burn your hair afterward.

So, yeah -- there is a difference between shaving because you want to, and shaving because of an oath.
It's just that lots of Christians, throughout history, have been forced to shave their heads because of various oaths they took.

I shave my head because of the military. its no mandatory to have it that short but im cheap so its cheaper to have it shaven then to pay for a haircut

 

[Leah781]

I understand what you are saying and agree. Christians can make their own vows to God and shave their head as a symbol if they want to like Paul did. I said there was no Christian Nazarites because I was thinking of it in terms of the Mosaic Law and the particular set of practices that had to be followed by the Nazarites. Yes you are right if we make a vow to God and dedicate our lives to it we can be considered a Nazarite in a symbolic way. I guess I just don't hear people today say that they are Nazarites.

Ahh... ypu must not have been reading my earlier posts... because Hebrew converts to Christianity, often did follow the rituals of Moses, and even stayed in the temple at the set times of prayer up and until the temples destruction, for many years after Jesus died and rose again. It's not because they were "under" the law, but because they were free to do so -- and did.

So, I might agree with you that Gentile's didn't tend to be Nazarites who shaved their hair when taking a vow ... but where do you get the idea that there weren't Jewish Christian nazirs, eg: Christians who did shave heads and/or grow their hair when taking vows? I think there were certainly Christians who still took vows ... !

I mean: The etymology of the word, Nazarite, itself is simply the Hebrew word for a person who is consecrated, as any google search can discover:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazirite
"Nazarite" comes from the Hebrew word nazir meaning "consecrated" or "separated".

There's also another important detail in the article:


And let me add another Christian detail to the discussion: one additional method of consecration is to be christened (oiled).

So, where do you get the idea that there are no Christian Nazirs from the bible?
Being a nazarite is voluntary, not a requirement of the mosaic law. No one has to be under the law to take a vow of consecration to God !!

That's why I pointed out earlier that Paul, himself, -- as a Christian, not as a Jew, shaved his head when he consecrated himself for taking a vow: Acts 18:18, Acts 21:23-24

I don't know of any commentator who doesn't realize that Paul took a vow of consecration that at very least imitated, the Jewish law:

http://pauls-post-crucifixion-temple-sacrifices.info/pauls-nazirite-vow-acts-18.html

And, since Paul did it -- other Christians can too; So what's so wrong with "imitating" Paul's taking of a nazorite style vow ? (Paul was nearly bald, apparently -- so most people imitating him try to imitate pattern baldness)....

1Corinthians 4:16

Isn't that what it's all about -- imitating Paul?
Paul did command that even the woman ought to be shaven, after all.

And... Here's a christian that clearly imitated the hair cutting part (tonsure), hundreds of years after Jesus; so I'm sure some Christians still do it today.

 

[About the Son of God]

It's hardly surprising that you don't hear it.
Unless you live near a community of Christians who both know history, and still practice 2000 year old Christian vows or else you live near aramaic or syriac speaking peoples; you aren't likely to hear a Hebrew word in English. You're more likely to hear "tonsure' than 'nazir'. But that doesn't change the fact that the word itself, nazarite, nazirite, etc. means "vow" and is not strictly limited to the mosaic law and has a very deeply divided Christian history.

Consider:
John the baptist was an actual nazirite, in the mosaic law sense; consecrated within his mother's womb like Sampson.
And many people mistakenly thought John was the messiah (eg: the Christ), as the prophets had foretold -- BUT -- There was a dispute as to exactly how the ides of nazirite would fit into the prophecies which would led to deadly persecution between Christians and Jews. ( Matthew 11:18-19 )

(Note: In early Jewish scriptures, vowels with the exception of Aleph, were not written down until long after Jesus died. so, Nazirite, was originally written like Nazr when the prophecies about the messiah were recorded. Nazirite, Nazorite, Nazorean, are all words which *CAN* fit the same consonant pattern. I think it's likely a matter of the translator's choice as to what appears in any bible translated from the original languages before the time of Jesus. )

So -- the Nazirite status of the messiah was part of the (disputed) prophecies of the coming of the messiah (Matthew 2:23, Matthew 11:19). No prophet ever wrote down in scripture that Jesus would come from a town called "Nazareth"; rather they said he would come from "Bethlehem".

But even so, but the prople who stood to loose the most power when the messiah came were the Pharisees, and they didn't really care where he came from: the wished to kill both John the Baptist and Jesus as threats to their authority regardless of what the prophets said. The pharisees (and their fathers) were always getting the prophets killed.

Knowledge about the pharisaical disputes, and public acting out of those divisive beliefs along with caulumny / attempts to identify the Christian interpretations of those prophecies with illegal activities of thieves/brigands from Nazareth ( John 1:46 ) were very common when Paul wrote the letter to the Corinthians. We're at a disadvantage in interpreting these scriptures, because some of what has happened is no longer part of our present day experience as Christians and does not automatically come to mind when reading a scripture. We have to study and cross reference things in the bible to even get a glimmer of an idea of what was going on.

But it's plain to see in scripture that the secular authorities understood Christians to be Nazr's; Acts 24:5 because of accusations from the Jews -- and I mean, read Acts 20:17-40, and Acts 21:1-8 very carefully.

Notice that it begins with Paul who had shaved his own head on account of a vow, paying for four other Jewish Christians to have their heads shaved. And it is on account of this very activity that Paul gets arrested (his enemies using false accusations and mob violence) for breaking the laws of Moses. But notice that Paul, is said in Scripture chose to address the crowds in aramaic for his own defense (Eg: Aramaic is a Jewish variant/descendant of the Hebrew language; so that the ambiguity about "Nazr" was exploitable by Paul to confound his enemies. ) and it is in that language (not Greek) that Paul defends his own actions in the temple (eg: shaving of heads).

Now: Notice very carefully, that Paul suddenly refers to the vision he had on the road to Damascus as coming from Jesus (Which means "God saves in Hebrew/Aramaic) the "Nazr" (Nazorean/Nazirite/etc.) as part of his justification for what he had just done in the temple. eg: Paul specifically names "God saves the Nazr" as part of his defense for taking Nazirite vows and showing the falsity of the Jew's accusations against him.

And paul can do this truthfully because the law of Moses was written to speak/prepare for the messiah: ( Luke 24:44-45 ) -- eg: The Law of Moses isn't just about rules and regulations, it's about foretelling the prophet to come with power over the law (like Moses) to whom the people were commanded by Moses to "listen" (Deuteronomy 18:15) ( Even Today's Christians ought to listen to Jesus, riiiight ? )

The upshot of all this is that Christians were called "Nazareans" in the first century by civil authorities, ( Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect) ) because a significant portion of Christian Converts were Jews, exactly like Paul, who still sometimes shaved their heads as a sign of "Christian" consecration but which did not break the law of Moses.

That practice, I think, became less common over time as Jesus' command to "convert all nations" led to the effect that Jews became the minority of Christians, as one nation among many who Jesus has brought into his fold. Besides which, the temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in 70A.D. So, there aren't Christians who could go there to finish the ritual even if they wanted to.

And it is precisely in this pre 70.A.D. context, while the temple still functioned -- that a Jewish Nazir (Paul), wrote the scriptures telling the Mixed Gentile and Jew community at Corinth about imitating "Paul" (1Corinthians 11:1) And Paul says, in passing, that he himself imitates Christ, ( hmmm, but I wonder what that has to do with the shaving of heads ?? ) and don't forget Paul wrote this while still awaiting trial by the Romans, for the same shaving of heads, no less... ) that got him arrested in Acts 20, this arrest -- just like Christ -- would eventually lead to Paul being put to death by the Romans, though he "did no wrong",and though paul's death was by circumcision at the neck -- not crucifixion.

Given this deep historical connection; It's difficult for me to see that 1:Corinthians 11 applies to modern Christian Women as a requirement of how they (or men) ought to wear head-coverings or not as a sign of "headship"; without any clear explanation of Paul's logic that is consistent with history.

Paul did command "Let the woman be shaven" -- Yet who obey's Paul's command in this modern Christian era or can explain why he would give such a command in context of his own imprisonment (shame) for having shaven his own head ? ( 1 Corinthians 11:5-6 ) Women could be Nazirites according to the Law of Moses, so his comments -- are very unclear.

There is something fundamental missing in the discussion.

 

[About the Son of God]

Errata: I meant to say that Paul's arrest was recorded in Acts 21:17-40, and the Aramaic speech continues in Acts 22:1-8.
I also just noticed that the word trasliterated Nazr, in English is apparently (at least sometimes) spelled, נָזִיר, Nzyr in modern Hebrew. The 'y' may either be treated as a consonant, or occasionally treated as a vowel; It's not consistent. I don't know if that affects the interpretation of what was translated into Greek in Acts, because Hebrew vowel variations when translated (transliterating) into Greek are often not very consistent. I don't know if that reflects conventions, or if the pronunciation of Hebrew words changed over the several hundreds of years between the time they were first written and translated into Greek, and the time when Jesus came; But, I wanted to be complete about the study so as not to mislead anyone.