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

[handy]

I agree. I had never seen that before you mentioned it earlier.

Agreed.


Is it shameful for a woman to have a short hair cut? If so why?

I don't agree with your statement here. It doesn't say just shaven but OR shorn (cut short). So I'll ask the same question and a few others in a different way.
Is it indecent (abominable, filthy) for a woman to have a short hair cut? If so why? Do women look like men if they have a short hair cut? Can you tell the difference?
G149
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag:
a-1a(1)
Gloss:
disgraceful, shameful
Definition:
strictly, deformed, opposed to καλός; metaph. shameful, indecent, dishonorable, vile, 1 Cor. 11:6; 14:35; Eph. 5:12; Tit. 1:11*

Eph 5:11 and have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of the darkness and rather even convict,
Eph 5:12 for the things in secret done by them it is a shame even to speak of,

Tit 1:11 whose mouth it behoveth to stop, who whole households do overturn, teaching what things it behoveth not, for filthy lucre's sake.

Deborah, you have been really plugging away with some thought provoking posts in this thread.

And, I think this question in particular gets to the heart of the matter. The appeal to the shame of a woman with short hair is cultural, because, let's face it... there isn't an inherent shame in short hair, it's just that in many cultures it's a taught shame. In our culture...that of Western Society... there isn't a scintilla of shame for a woman to have her hair cut short. Most women, including very godly women, have short hair. Long tresses are more for the young girls. Some individuals might find shame in it, but not our culture or society.

This passage causes disagreement due to two very specific statements Paul made: "Because of the angels" and "if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off, then she should cover her head". Another reason why this passage causes disagreements is that there are far too many women who earnestly desire to be godly, submissive and obedient to both our Lord and our husbands who know that the Holy Spirit has given us freedom in this...even if some other Christian brothers and sisters would deny that freedom. (For my part, I'm not going to address those who simply write this passage off as so much misogynistic blather that should just be ignored by all enlightened thinkers...I'm limiting myself to those of us who find the Scriptures to be God-breathed and necessary to our spiritual growth.)

Now, I think we can all agree that the Holy Spirit does not give us freedom to sin. So, if this passage constitutes a command from God that all Christian women, no matter what era, culture or community she lives in, must have her head covered, then there would be no liberty in the matter whatsoever. Either the same women who earnestly desire to be godly find freedom in this matter are mistaken in their conviction of liberty in this area or others are mistaken that the headcovering is mandatory to godly obedience. Very few things come down to either/or situations, but I think this one does... if the headcovering is mandatory, those who find liberty in not wearing one are mistaken. If they do in fact have the liberty of praying and prophesying without the headcovering, then it's not mandatory.

Now, we all know that we as humans can be mistaken... both in matters of conscience and in understanding Scriptures... so how to resolve the dilemma here?

I believe (because I found it to be so through intensive study on this passage...study that looked to allowing other Scriptures to "interpret" this passage) that when Paul states "if it be a shame" he is using the cultural norm of wearing headcoverings to emphasize the real spiritual point he was making. Because the bottom line point Paul is making isn't the headcoverings, but rather the need for Christian women to be submissive to the headship of men in order to demonstrate the truth of the nature between Christ and His Bride. It's this order of headship that Paul is referring to when he states in 1 Corinthians 11:10 "It is for this reason"...

Keep in mind the context of 1 Corinthians... the entire letter was written to the church at Corinth because there were disagreements and quarrels among the congregation. Paul is addressing a problem specific to Corinth in this passage... but as is usual with Paul's writings, he reinforces timeless principles when addressing the specific issues. The timeless principle that Paul reinforces when addressing whatever specific issue arose regarding the headcovering for women (and it's important to note that the original issue isn't addressed, it was specific to Corinth) is the created order between men and women. Whatever that original issue was... whether women were usurping the authority of men or casting off the headcoverings as an act of feminist arrogance or what... Paul reinforced that, because obviously in that society it was a shame and disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved... then the covering should remain in place.

 

[handy]

I would compare 1Corinth. 10:29-33 to
1Co 9:19 for being free from all men, to all men I made myself servant, that the more I might gain;
1Co 9:20 and I became to the Jews as a Jew, that Jews I might gain; to those under law as under law, that those under law I might gain;
1Co 9:21 to those without law, as without law--(not being without law to God, but within law to Christ) --that I might gain those without law;
1Co 9:22 I became to the infirm as infirm, that the infirm I might gain; to all men I have become all things, that by all means I may save some.
1Co 9:23 And this I do because of the good news, that a fellow-partaker of it I may become;

I think these verses speak loudly to the point that in Paul's ministry and in what he taught, he was Very conscience of the culture of the people he was ministering to. And that we need to take that into account when we try to understand what was going on in any particular church or all churchs, at a particular time. To understand that different things, mean different things within cultures and that Paul was not as concerned with make rules, as he was with saving souls.
I think that was what handy might have been saying too, when she was talking about the women she ministers to.

Yes, you are correct. If it would be a better witness to the unsaved women in my community to have my head covered, then I'd do so in a heartbeat with no problem. For instance, if we were to move to the Middle East or some place in which it was considered shameful for a woman to be without a head covering, heck, even Dearborn, MI might qualify, then I would wear one.

But, in my neck of the woods... a headcovering would be counter-productive to sharing the gospel. It would a: violate modesty by making me stand out like a sore thumb; b: make the gospel a cause for derision, and c: distract from the message.

Now... if the headcovering were indeed mandatory and no saved woman should be without one, then so be it, I'd have to deal. However, since, after much earnest study on this issue, I don't find the headcovering to be mandatory at all then it's not worth the downside.

 

[jasonc]

I don't see a full facial cover being allowed in the us, why? its against the law to cover ones face while taking an id pic. the cops would have no way of identify criminals or persons that are runaways. that is being discussed in one state. I know that its against army regs.

 

[lovestodance]

So do you believe that it shows that a woman is (abominable, filthy) if she has her head shaven or cut Very short?

First of all I am a product of my culture, and seeing a woman with short hair does not give a second thought to me, whereas seeing a woman who is bald would be quite remarkable. I have known several women who have become bald because of chemo, and I am trying to relate to their discomfort or embarrassment and the preference of wearing a wig so as not to be discomfited in public. I would think a shaven woman back then would feel the same way.

Because he is saying that it says something about her if she has hair short, like a man, or shaven.
Remember, they didn't have the means to do 'buzz cuts' not even in shearing sheep. Now a days, we use clippers for a closer cut but before clippers there were just shears, like huge scissors.

True, but razors then worked like razors now, and shaven would be the same as we think of it today.

IMO - for what that's worth - I think Paul is probably using the term from the aspect of it being a shame rather than being vile, abominable, or filthy. Those terms just don't seem to fit, and there is nothing in the context that would imply it. But it would seem to fit if a woman's uncovered presence was putting her and her congregation to shame by dishonoring Christ and exalting man.

 

[Army Wife]

Should we? That is up to you if you want. Do we HAVE to? I don't think so unless you want to live word by word by the bible. Just my thoughts.

Blessings,

Army Wife

 

[lovestodance]

Handy, I really like your second post back, I won't quote all of it here for the sake of space, but your insight that there are many godly women who just cant see head covering for today is something I have thought about for some time, and I think here is why: The passage is traditionally interpreted and expounded as the head covering being the way a woman shows submission to her husband or men. I don't think the passage holds together or makes sense when considered from that premise, and I imagine it doesn't hold together for most godly women who come at it from that perspective either.

But for the godly woman who is not wanting to be disobedient to Scripture, now what does she do with it? So it is typically assumed to be a cultural thing that was applicable just to Corinth for whatever reason. And therefore not appropriate for today. Consequently today's Christian woman shows submission to her husband by her demeanor, wearing a wedding ring, etc.

But if a woman's subjection to her husband or other men is not what the passage is all about, but instead it is all about displaying the headship of Christ in the midst of His church, now what? Where do we go from here?

 

[Army Wife]

I don't see a full facial cover being allowed in the us, why? its against the law to cover ones face while taking an id pic. the cops would have no way of identify criminals or persons that are runaways. that is being discussed in one state. I know that its against army regs.

I can see that and I understand that.

 

[Deborah13]

Deborah, you have been really plugging away with some thought provoking posts in this thread.

And, I think this question in particular gets to the heart of the matter. The appeal to the shame of a woman with short hair is cultural, because, let's face it... there isn't an inherent shame in short hair, it's just that in many cultures it's a taught shame. In our culture...that of Western Society... there isn't a scintilla of shame for a woman to have her hair cut short. Most women, including very godly women, have short hair. Long tresses are more for the young girls. Some individuals might find shame in it, but not our culture or society.

This passage causes disagreement due to two very specific statements Paul made: "Because of the angels" and "if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off, then she should cover her head". Another reason why this passage causes disagreements is that there are far too many women who earnestly desire to be godly, submissive and obedient to both our Lord and our husbands who know that the Holy Spirit has given us freedom in this...even if some other Christian brothers and sisters would deny that freedom. (For my part, I'm not going to address those who simply write this passage off as so much misogynistic blather that should just be ignored by all enlightened thinkers...I'm limiting myself to those of us who find the Scriptures to be God-breathed and necessary to our spiritual growth.)

Now, I think we can all agree that the Holy Spirit does not give us freedom to sin. So, if this passage constitutes a command from God that all Christian women, no matter what era, culture or community she lives in, must have her head covered, then there would be no liberty in the matter whatsoever. Either the same women who earnestly desire to be godly find freedom in this matter are mistaken in their conviction of liberty in this area or others are mistaken that the headcovering is mandatory to godly obedience. Very few things come down to either/or situations, but I think this one does... if the headcovering is mandatory, those who find liberty in not wearing one are mistaken. If they do in fact have the liberty of praying and prophesying without the headcovering, then it's not mandatory.

Now, we all know that we as humans can be mistaken... both in matters of conscience and in understanding Scriptures... so how to resolve the dilemma here?

I believe (because I found it to be so through intensive study on this passage...study that looked to allowing other Scriptures to "interpret" this passage) that when Paul states "if it be a shame" he is using the cultural norm of wearing headcoverings to emphasize the real spiritual point he was making. Because the bottom line point Paul is making isn't the headcoverings, but rather the need for Christian women to be submissive to the headship of men in order to demonstrate the truth of the nature between Christ and His Bride. It's this order of headship that Paul is referring to when he states in 1 Corinthians 11:10 "It is for this reason"...

Keep in mind the context of 1 Corinthians... the entire letter was written to the church at Corinth because there were disagreements and quarrels among the congregation. Paul is addressing a problem specific to Corinth in this passage... but as is usual with Paul's writings, he reinforces timeless principles when addressing the specific issues. The timeless principle that Paul reinforces when addressing whatever specific issue arose regarding the headcovering for women (and it's important to note that the original issue isn't addressed, it was specific to Corinth) is the created order between men and women. Whatever that original issue was... whether women were usurping the authority of men or casting off the headcoverings as an act of feminist arrogance or what... Paul reinforced that, because obviously in that society it was a shame and disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved... then the covering should remain in place.

I am in full agreement with you.

 

[Deborah13]

IMO - for what that's worth - I think Paul is probably using the term from the aspect of it being a shame rather than being vile, abominable, or filthy. Those terms just don't seem to fit, and there is nothing in the context that would imply it.

We are not allowed to changed the definition of a word or how it is used in scripture because it doesn't it our own view. God/Paul, used the Greek word for shame that denotes something that is seen as abominable or filthy,
whether we like it or not.

First of all I am a product of my culture, and seeing a woman with short hair does not give a second thought to me, whereas seeing a woman who is bald would be quite remarkable. I have known several women who have become bald because of chemo, and I am trying to relate to their discomfort or embarrassment and the preference of wearing a wig so as not to be discomfited in public. I would think a shaven woman back then would feel the same way.

I am one of those woman. In 2001, I had my daughter's cousin, cut my almost waist length hair and shave my head. I asked her because we groomed show horses together and I knew she would do a good job with the clippers. She cried as she did it, I did not.
I can guarantee you that I felt no shame whatsoever. Why should I, it did not say anything bad about me as a person. I could easily have gone bareheaded without it bothering me but others would have been uncomfortable with my illness being constantly before their eyes, especially friends and family. But even those at the office would have been prone to treating me differently. Also those who were not privy to my personal life would have wondered and those who knew me would have known I must have cancer, but would be prone to gossip. This gossiping actually happened. A Christian woman had heard through the gossip vine and called me to ask when I was excepted to die, she had heard I had 3 wks. to live.
I also can guarantee you that no one that looked at me from the neck up even, would have thought I was a man, anymore than Demi Moore did, when her head was shaved for GI Jane. (Not that I was as beautiful as she is.)
Shame? Absolutely not. In fact, after having very long hair 90% of my life, it was rather liberating, not to have to fuss with it and deal with it getting in the way.

 

[handy]

Handy, I really like your second post back, I won't quote all of it here for the sake of space, but your insight that there are many godly women who just cant see head covering for today is something I have thought about for some time, and I think here is why: The passage is traditionally interpreted and expounded as the head covering being the way a woman shows submission to her husband or men. I don't think the passage holds together or makes sense when considered from that premise, and I imagine it doesn't hold together for most godly women who come at it from that perspective either.

I agree. I think the passage shows Paul addressing a current issue within the local church at Corinth (something to do with head coverings, but we don't know exactly what it was) and emphasizing an eternal principle to apply to the issue (the fact that a woman's submissive attitude to her husband is reflective of Christ's headship to the Church.)

But for the godly woman who is not wanting to be disobedient to Scripture, now what does she do with it? So it is typically assumed to be a cultural thing that was applicable just to Corinth for whatever reason. And therefore not appropriate for today. Consequently today's Christian woman shows submission to her husband by her demeanor, wearing a wedding ring, etc.

But if a woman's subjection to her husband or other men is not what the passage is all about, but instead it is all about displaying the headship of Christ in the midst of His church, now what? Where do we go from here?

Good question. I think the answer is still that wives need to submit to husbands....because it is through this practice that we women demonstrate Christ's headship over the Church. Just as man was made as the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man, Christ is the very Image and Glory of God and the Church is (or should be) the glory of Christ. How does the church best glorify Christ? By being submissive to and working out His will here on earth. What's the best illustration that we can give to show this spiritual relationship between Christ and the Church? I believe that Paul is pointing out a wife's submissive attitude towards her husband and being his helpmeet, just as she was created to be.

 

[lovestodance]

We are not allowed to changed the definition of a word or how it is used in scripture because it doesn't it our own view. God/Paul, used the Greek word for shame that denotes something that is seen as abominable or filthy,
whether we like it or not.

My bad. Looked it up in Strongs and it appeared to have 2 slightly different levels of meaning, I was going with the milder one. Looked it up in Vines, and you are right. Creates an interesting aspect to the passage I was not aware of. Thanks.

 

[Butch5]

It's not the whole Glory of creation that I am talking about.
I'm referencing that male and female human beings are made in the image of God. They are God's glory because they are made in his image. Animals, and grain, and other things are not specifically the image of God. Those things glorify God in a different way. Man is unique.

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Therefore, the glory of being made in the image of God comes only to mankind; and any Glory about man as specifically male and female is what Paul is talking about in the sentences of 1Corinthians 11:3. Paul doesn't use the generic, 'anthropos' (man), but rather words specifically meaning both male and human, and also female and human.

As far as I know -- all Glory a person has, is connected to God by their name; But -- when God first created Adam and Eve, he called them as a pair by a single name; Adam : Genesis 5:2 --- God did not call them by two different names. Rather: It is Adam who named and gained power over Eve at a later date, but only after she fell into sin and not a moment before.
That is why I am wondering about what is 'wrong' with the woman in a new creation, with Christ redeeming her every bit as much as he redeems man. Why would she differs from man in Glory in way which she did not before sin ?

If woman, and I mean -- a human being, and not the church as a whole -- is what Paul is talking about in 1Corinthians 11:3, then interpreting that as making her somehow separate from the man, and a possession of man for his Glory, would symbolically makes her the equivalent of a trophy or a crown. Therefore the elders in Revelation 4:4 or someone should be throwing women into the sea if women really and always and only belong to man; for the other thing that is man's Glory is explicitly "a crown of life" and that is thrown into the sea in order to give God Glory over man's glory.

Revelation 2:10, Genesis 3:20, Revelation 4:10-11

And the angel stuff you speak of is really confusing, I *really* don't understand what Tertullian is talking about...

When I read Isaiah, about the angels, I come to the very distinct conclusion that the angels are, NOT watching -- for their eyes are covered (veiled). With a little more study, I come to the conclusion that the seraphim are serpent like angels, and that's why Moses had a seraph serpent (fire serpent) on his staff. As far as I can tell, the seraphim are likely the same class of angel from which came the Devil, except that he lost his wings and no longer is a bearer of light; whereas the seraphim in heaven have both wings and fire. They are like the sun, or like lightning, or stars when they wish to be; That is why the devil's name was once lucifer (light bearer). So -- perhaps the Seraphim as a class have a reason to be ashamed that the Devil came from them, and one particular woman (Eve) who was deceived by the devil, but it doesn't make any sense to me that the angels wear veils. while the woman wears a dominion cap of authority when angels are mentioned, according to the Greek (1Corinthians 11:10), and some kind of turban according to Tertulian. Its a total disconnect.

For I looked to see what can be found about women in heaven, or in a heavenly liturgy like Isaiah or Revelation.
But the only headpiece mentioned in Revelation for a woman is not a Veil, which would 'cover' her, rather she wears a crown (Revelation 12:1) which is a dominion hat, but one clearly made of angels (for stars are a sign meaning angels), and that kind of thing on her head would definitely NOT hide her FROM the angels. Both Isaiah and Revelation are visions of the same place, so they ought to be consistent.

But: if long hair is a covering, then it is strange that the only place it is mentioned in the heavenly visions is in a very negative light: eg: Revelation 9:7-8.

I don't know why you are repeating the shorn hair commands to me, for yes -- it is a command; but I see no women in heaven with hair or coverings. So maybe having short hair is appropriate.

I do agree that Paul lays out an order: 1st -- "I [Paul] am a follower of Christ" 2nd -- "be you-all imitators of me"
and he does this immediately before laying out a second order, the order you are speaking about -- but he does it as a series of sentence fragments; I've looked at an interlinear for the sentence, where translators show interpolated, added words that aren't in the original Greek in brackets [] , and all the brackets are concentrated around the woman; 1Corinthians 11:3

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-3.htm

When I study the sentence, this is what I see and think:

1Corinthians 11:3 but I'll have you know that of all [a] male, the head [united with] the Anointed, is .

The words Head and Anointed are both subject words, neither of them is a predicate. Their genders differ, hence that usually indicates a family/covenant/marriage relationship in Greek for otherwise the gender of adjectives are supposed to match (and they don't). Thats why I say [united with]; So -- One way it can be read is that: Out of all that is male, the head is the anointed. Or the annointed is the Head. Or, I might read it that all heads united with the Christ are male -- but there is only one head (singular) male.

What I am sure of is that this head male, is in the position of some kind of elder and is consecrated (anointed).

Then the sentence goes on, and a semicolon in the original text indicates where the word 'but' would be in English.

1Corinthinans 11:3 ... but [a] head woman [united with] the male,

Which is an incomplete sentence fragment and not really translatable without adding a whole bunch of words.

Again there are no predicate (AKA accusative case words) in the ongoing sentence fragment, and worse -- there is no definite article on woman, and no adjective saying every woman, and worst of all -- no verb whatsoever. We don't know who this woman is; but there is only one of her and being juxtaposed with a male -- that is normally a sign that two people (male and female) are married.

And in the final part of the sentence, Paul switches to genitive grammar which breaks the previous patterns and says, "but head -of-the-annointed [is] God." No marriage is implied as the words are not gender mismatched and Paul is very careful not to allow homosexual unions to be suggested when it comes to God.

So -- what I see is that God is the one who put an annointed male as head of [a] [particular] marriage.
Nothing more. So it looks to me.

But I see clearly that tons of translators are adding words to English versions of the bible in order to make sense out of what Paul said in that passage; and it's not very clear to me exactly what Paul means ( 2Peter 3:16 ), except that an elder is anointed, not the wife, and God is the head of anointing.

But even if I accept the KJV's version of the translation of 1Corinthians 11:3 and 1Corinthians 11:5, it's not going to help; for the KJV doesn't say her 'own' head, but merely her 'head'. So, Paul could mean that she tries to pray together with her anointed/consecrated husband, or Paul could mean she prays without a covering on her head in general.



Yes, it's a command. But -- It was you who brought up Tertullian, and church history -- was it not?
Tertulian is also an early witnesses to men of the church wearing pointy hats called mitres:

Tertulian Chapter 14: Clue to the error of the Jews: "He was stripped of His former sordid raiment, and adorned with a garment down to the foot, and with a turban and a clean mitre, that is, (with the garb) of the SECOND ADVENT; since He is demonstrated as having attained "glory and honour."

http://www.preteristarchive.com/ChurchHistory/0198_tertullian_answer-jews.html

So, even though Paul says men should go bald (like he himself??), the fact is that Tertulian witnesses that men wear hats, eg: for church too, at least some of them do part of the time. His rules must be very nuanced.

It seems to me that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. We know from history that the women covered their heads. We know what the Corinthians, to whom Paul wrote the letter, did. What is the reason you've raised these other issues?

Regarding the angels, the word "angelos" simply means messengers. Paul writes of the powers and principalities in the heavenlies. I think that eliminates the the fallen angels. It seems to me that the only angels or messengers are those in the heavenlies. What is it that you find confusion about what I said?

 

[Sinthesis]

It seems to me that shame is not an absolute. What is regarded as shameful can change over time along with one's culture or circumstance. Theological value judgments shouldn't rest on such a fickle foundation.

 

[About the Son of God]

It seems to me that you're making this more complicated than it needs to be. We know from history that the women covered their heads. We know what the Corinthians, to whom Paul wrote the letter, did. What is the reason you've raised these other issues?

Regarding the angels, the word "angelos" simply means messengers. Paul writes of the powers and principalities in the heavenlies. I think that eliminates the the fallen angels. It seems to me that the only angels or messengers are those in the heavenlies. What is it that you find confusion about what I said?

Butch, it's part of bible study to look at things according to scripture as a whole ; and to try and reconcile differences in opinions about scripture so that they all fit together harmoniously. Part of the reason I brought these scriptural truths up -- is to see what you would say about them.

In my opinion; Tertullian is confusing -- as he is (at best) a witness to a particular belief system of some Christians at a particular time in history and who supports Paul's teaching regarding women when taken literally, but contradicting it when applied to men. That looks very much like a form of christian pharisism to me, and not to be trusted without careful inspection; eg: unless there is an underlying logic that can be traced out in the bible as to why Paul would make the particular claims he makes and Tertulian the claims he makes.

I am wanting to look at the passages we're focusing on in light of all of scripture; It should make MORE sense the more scripture is applied to it -- not less sense. For the more eternal the truth, as promise or prophecy, the more strongly Paul ought to respect it.

Earlier in the thread, for example someone brought up "Nazarite", and someone else shot them down and said without explanation "Nazarites don't apply;" But when I look up Nazarites, I find that God himself dictated the Nazarite vow's form, when I tried to trace out why it is irrelevant or relevant -- and what I notice is that a Nazarite is a person who makes a vow to God (a promise to do some task), and then shave their head to get rid of any defilement -- and then, during the entire time they are attempting to fulfill their vow after having been cleansed of defilement by shaving (eg: like getting rid of lice, I suppose), they no longer cut their hair; but let it grow to any length while they are unable to fulfill their vow. Once the vow is fulfilled, though, they then shave off their hair a second time and burn it at the altar as a sign that their vow has been completed. After that, they can do whatever they want with their hair -- as the vow is fulfilled and hair is no longer an issue.

So a bald head, for a Nazarite, is a sign of either beginning or completing a vow. But long hair indicates an unfulfilled vow. eg: A Shame, for one not ought to keep God waiting.

Of course, Paul, being semi-bald according to everything I've been able to find on him -- didn't have fast growing hair; he was lucky to have hair at all -- so he was somewhat immune to ever showing evidence of failing to fulfill a vow -- but even then; Look what we know from scripture about Paul:

Acts 18:18 And Paul {Who wrote the passage on hair} after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.

So, when Paul says in 1Corinthians 11:1 -- be ye followers of ME. ( eg: imitate me. ), the idea of shaving the head for a Nazarite style vow/oath is clearly something the Corinthians would have known that "Paul" did and a Christian can do.

But there is another implication, for a man with long hair, might publicly be thought of as a shame not because they are effimate, but simply because the Jews would gossip they were unable to fulfill a vow they took. eg: They boasted that they would do something before God, and never were able to bring it to fruition.

Yet no one in this thread seems to notice any of these kinds of details -- but are more concerned with their own opinion of what a passage 'must' mean.

So, about those angels .... I am not entirely sure that fallen angels can not be meant; for in Revelation it talks about 1/3 the stars from heaven falling to earth. And to be clear, at a rudimentary level -- notice that God placed the stars in the sky as a calendar, eg: not as "gods" to be ido-latryized, but none the less a calendar in the sky (Genes 1:14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years ). So that the stars in heaven are by definition angels of God, eg: signs are messages -- And that is true as surely as the angelic beings (Gabriel, Michael, etc. ) are also angels who came to earth in order to speak with man on God's behalf.

Consider: It was the angels at night who came after the star which set over Bethlehem, to inform the shepherds that the messiah had been born. And they said two things in one sentence: "Glory to God in the highest and on Earth; Peace to people of Good will" -- and also "Glory to God in the highest ; and on Earth Peace to people of Good will"; So that their message may be understood two ways -- both of which are true; So I want to emphasize that stars and angelic beings both -- are meant to give man various kinds of messages. The constellation Virgo (virgin) and Rex (king), played a part according to NASA based Astronomical calculations, in a unique way in heralding the coming of the messiah.

There is a video "Star of Bethlehem" presented by Rick Larson which is very good at describing how the constellations in the heavens were a part of the prophecy of the coming of the messiah -- in addition to the angelic beings. It's not a perfect explanation, for it fails on but one point, eg: That both God and Man have names for the constellations in heaven, not God alone; but the oversight doesn't affect the truth of what he is saying.

But, regarding "Principalities","Thrones",and "Dominions" that you mentioned -- where exactly did Paul say those words?

And why do you apply them to Chapter 11 of 1st Corinthians ?

Paul merely said "through the angels" in chapter 11. That's why I brought up the woman in Revelation who had "stars" on her head, for angels are also stars. He didn't say "principalities" over her head, did he? ( 1Corinthians 11:10 )

 

[dianegcook]

Butch5
We all are suppose to be the bride of Christ.
So, you being a male, should also cover your head? Lol
The Lord has said numerous times, not to follow a fool.
What if the wife was a believer, and the husband not, should she submit to him, and not believe also?

I'm sure Deborah had no problem.
Men obeyed her.
Barack wouldn't go to war without her.

I pray all day long, talk to my Father, I really think, that God doesn't care if my head is covered or not.
I just can't see it.
Me driving down the road, and want to thank my Father, but wait, got to cover my head.
Go out to eat and say my prayer, but first put my cap on,

Isn't that putting me in bondage again?
In Christ, there is no male nor female, I'm a new creature, in spirit, there is no gender.

Not trying to be rebellious to men, lol, nor God.

 

[dianegcook]

PS, butch5
Am I saved, since I prayed for forgiveness, and accepted Christ as Lord and Saviour, without my head covered?

Did any woman here? Lol

 

[Leah781]

A Christian woman does not need to wear head covering at all times. There are a few circumstances when a woman would wear head covering. Keep in mind it is the husband’s role to be the spiritual head of the family. Also only qualified men would preside over and teach within a Christian congregation. 1Timothy 2:11,12, 1Timothy 3:1-7.
I will give you a few examples.

Suppose a husband regularly conducts a weekly bible study with his wife and children and he becomes very ill and asks his wife to conduct the bible study, then she would wear a head covering. The act of wearing a head covering would be to show submission and respect for her husband’s role as the spiritual head of the family.

If she were to pray or to teach in the presence of her minor baptized son, she would likewise wear a head covering, not because he is the head of the family, but because of the authority granted to baptized male members of the Christian congregation.

If a sister is conducting a bible study with unbaptized or non-believers then she need not wear a head covering, unless a baptized brother is present. (If this is the case the sister would most likely let the brother conduct the study therefore she would not wear the head covering.)

Lastly under rare circumstances when no baptized brothers are available or other arraignments could not be made a baptized sister may have to take on a duty that would normally be assigned to a baptized brother. This may occur in a remote missionary situation. In this case the woman would wear head covering.

P.S. Men don’t need to wear beards because we are no longer under the Mosaic Law.

 

[Deborah13]

A Christian woman does not need to wear head covering at all times. There are a few circumstances when a woman would wear head covering. Keep in mind it is the husband’s role to be the spiritual head of the family. Also only qualified men would preside over and teach within a Christian congregation. 1Timothy 2:11,12, 1Timothy 3:1-7.
I will give you a few examples.

Suppose a husband regularly conducts a weekly bible study with his wife and children and he becomes very ill and asks his wife to conduct the bible study, then she would wear a head covering. The act of wearing a head covering would be to show submission and respect for her husband’s role as the spiritual head of the family.

If she were to pray or to teach in the presence of her minor baptized son, she would likewise wear a head covering, not because he is the head of the family, but because of the authority granted to baptized male members of the Christian congregation.

If a sister is conducting a bible study with unbaptized or non-believers then she need not wear a head covering, unless a baptized brother is present. (If this is the case the sister would most likely let the brother conduct the study therefore she would not wear the head covering.)

Lastly under rare circumstances when no baptized brothers are available or other arraignments could not be made a baptized sister may have to take on a duty that would normally be assigned to a baptized brother. This may occur in a remote missionary situation. In this case the woman would wear head covering.

P.S. Men don’t need to wear beards because we are no longer under the Mosaic Law.

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.

 

[About the Son of God]

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

I mean, the law of the Nazarite always has been for both men and women, hasn't it?

Numbers 6:2

And since a christian can still take a Nazarite vow in the new testament, for we have examples of it; then it follows that women converts from Judaism -- feminine counterparts to Paul -- could still shave their hair as a sign of having taken the vow. Numbers 6:2, Numbers 6:18 vs. Acts 18:18.

In once sentence, Paul says "if she be uncovered" -- let her be shorn. And in another he says "If it be a shame" for her to be shorn -- let her be covered. (1 Corinthinans 11:6). So, in the first sentence -- he commands she be shaved, in the second part of the same sentence he commands she be covered -- but only 'if' a specific condition applies.

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/11-6.htm

Neither of the commands is absolute, but only conditional -- but none the less, he commands (Imperative verb) that she both be shaven and covered. It sounds to me, that women who take vows like Paul, should wear a habit in his opinion,but nothing more.

A few sentences later, Paul says "Judge for yourselves"; as in, make up your own mind about the matter.
1 Corinthians 11:13.

So, I really don't see how it can be wrong for a woman to be of shaved head, since Paul commands she be shaven ; and in the OT, God himself commanded that the Nazirite vow was permitted both for consecrated men AND women.

The only other way I can think to read Paul's statement, would be to understand that he is purposely advocating the punishment, and shaming of a woman in his churches. But that doesn't make sense -- for he himself would be hypocritically saying that it is fine for a man to take the Nazarite vow, in the New testament -- but not a woman. Why would this be?

 

[Sinthesis]

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).