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

[jasonc]

Frankly, its a command, not a personal choice. Actually, the command is to not destroy what naturally grows on the face via YHWH's creative will.

So when has a headaches from long hair and my wife had hair to her knees.obey it anyway
Carry 10 pounds of hair and see what it does.besides army regs.I serve.

 

[reba]

Stand fast in the liberty

 

[jasonc]

Stand fast in the liberty

I do. jews don't shave, they don't have long hair but we cant ignore the first audience and context.

ie if there be ANY contention amongst the churches we have no such custom nor law. how does an apostle negate Gods commands? Corinth is like las vegas.

 

[jocor]

Stand fast in the liberty

Your quote of Gal 5:1 refers to the liberty we have through grace and faith so that we no longer seek to be justified by the law (vs.4). It is NOT a liberty from having to obey the law which, in reality, is an excuse for feeding the flesh

 

[Sinthesis]

Sinthesis, it is good eisegesis, but this has nothing to do with Samson and the Nazarites.

Samson was a manly man, but with long hair, like a woman.

 

[Deborah13]

Esther had uncle or cousin (the language is not specific if memory serves) Mordecai as her "head" until she got married.

This headship, btw was not for dominance per se but for her protection mostly.

I think the NT church would have looked very different than the OT.
Many left Judaism and many left Gentile pagan religions. In order to do that many would no longer have had the protection of their father's or other male family members and those males most assuredly would not have had authority over them because they wouldn't have allowed them to follow the Christ.
Even unbelieving spouses were an issue because of this and there isn't any closer relationship than this one. If the unbelieving spouse was at peace with the believing spouse being a Christian and wanted to stay in the marriage, that was good. But if they weren't, they could leave. If the believing spouse were a woman, who now would be the authority over her, she was like the widow who's husband had died. Only in this case, he chose to die. He did not choose life. 1 Corinth 7:12-15
Paul even said that the husband should let the unbelieving wife go.

 

[Deborah13]

Not that the cloth itself means anything but the wearing of it would show the angels that the woman is following God's commands and is being subject to her husband.

Hi Butch, I spent much of yesterday reading everything that I could find that has been written about this scripture.
First I ask why you would use Tertullian to support your argument. Tertullian did not believe the headcovering had anything to do with husband and wives, he said all women including virgins. Nor did he believe that they should only be worn in the assembly but at all times. He often appeals to modesty so that men will not be tempted, as does Clement before him.
"It has also been commanded that the head should be veiled and the face covered; for it is a wicked thing for beauty to be a snare to men. Nor is it seemly for a woman to wish to make herself conspicuous, by using a purple veil. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.266"
"And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 195) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.2 pg.290"
Clement, was appealing to women who were uncovering outside the church and using the scripture to prove they should.
Tertullian also believed that 'angelos' is speaking about the 'fallen' angels.
"that he said women must be veiled, because on account of "the daughters of men" angels revolted from God. Who then, would contend that "women" alone - that is, such as were already wedded and had lost their virginity - were the objects of angelic concupiscence, unless "virgins" are incapable of excelling in beauty and finding lovers? Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 688"
You quoted Tertullian says that all the women in the church at Corinth wore headcovering ALL the time not just in the assembly. Now this is starting to make sense as to the problem in the church at Corinth and what Paul was addressing. This is what Tertullian says..........
"Why do you denude before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in the church? Be veiled, virgin, if virgin you are; for you ought to blush. If you are a virgin, shrink from (the gaze of) many eyes. Let no one wonder at your face; let no one perceive your falsehood. Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.3 pg. 689"
"Nay, rather banish quite away from your "free" head all this slavery of ornamentation. In vain do you labor to seem adorned: in vain do you call in the aid of all the most skilful manufacturers of false hair. God bids you "be veiled." I believe (He does so) for fear the heads of some should be seen! Tertullian (A.D. 198) Ante-Nicene Fathers vol.4 pg.22"
http://www.earlychristiandictionary.com/Veil.html
Continued..........

 

[Deborah13]

@Butch as for v10, I will quote Dr. Gill's commentary because I found his use of the Hebrew compared to the Greek LXX, enlightening.
1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head......
"The generality of interpreters, by power, understand the veil, or covering on the woman's head, as a sign of the man's power over her, and her subjection to him; which Dr. Hammond endeavours to confirm, by observing that the Hebrew word רדיד, which signifies a woman's veil, or hood, comes from a root which signifies power and dominion; but in that he is mistaken, for the word is derived not from רדה, to rule, govern, or exercise power and authority, but from רדד, to expand, stretch out, or draw over, as a woman's veil is drawn over her head and face. The Greek word εξουσια more properly signifies the power she had of putting on and off her covering as she pleased, according as times, places, and persons; made it necessary:"
Dr Gill's explanation fits extremely well with what Tertullian was saying about the virgins being covered outside the church and uncovering in the assembly.
"Why do you denude before God what you cover before men? Will you be more modest in public than in the church?"
So what was going on in Corinth that was not going on in the other churches? I believe the women, especially virgins, were keeping their heads covered outside the church and uncovering in the assembly. Paul appeals to order of all and to nature as to the difference between male and female. Men did not cover their heads outside the church for modesty's sake but women did. Shouldn't a women be as modest if not more so inside the assembly as outside the assembly.
Why did men not cover their heads outside or inside the assembly according to Paul, because of the order of creation. We know this because Paul says that man was created first and she was created for him. 1 Corinthians 11:8-9
I agree with you that all creation was created through Christ. The man was created through Christ, that is his origin. Woman was created from man, that is her origin.
Paul is quick to reenforce his statements in other scripture, the 'in Christ' there is no male or female.
1Co 11:11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.

You are also correct in saying that it is the woman who has the power over the decision when to wear a headcovering or not, per this scripture that is speaking about ALL women, not just married women.
So then the whole premise now comes down to the 'angelos'. Who were/are the 'angelos'?

 

[cherovis]

No one can deny that 1 Cor 11:1-16 is Scripture, and since it clearly teaches that women should cover their heads during worship, that should be the end of the matter. There are millions of Christian women who obey this commandment.

I've read these verses are 1 Corinthians 11 & I do not find the word commandment anywhere. I have also researched any commandment Jesus may have given to suggest that a woman should cover her head when she prays. I can find none.

But this I do know; Paul was a Roman citizen & it was the custom for Romans to have short hair. In the aforementioned verses, Paul never says this is a law or a commandment of Jesus Christ. This is his own personal feelings. That's why he tells them to judge in themselves. It is a matter of choice. Don't you think if it were a law or commandment, Jesus would have told them women to cover their heads in prayer ? Then there are women like me who have never married. No man is my head. Only God is my head. I am a gentile & I have never been given any law regarding my hair or my head.

The gentiles were never given the law to live by. Ref: Romans 2:14 Until Paul brought the gospel of Jesus Christ, the gentile were "strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:" -Ephesians 2:12 As a gentile, I am saved by God through my faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God who has died & was resurrected which paid the debt for the sins of those in the world who would believe in him. Ref: John 3:16

About the beards; I know that God commanded the Jews not to trim the edges of their beards. But again, this was to the Jews, never to the gentiles. Ref: Acts 15:10

 

[Deborah13]

I do. jews don't shave, they don't have long hair but we cant ignore the first audience and context.

ie if there be ANY contention amongst the churches we have no such custom nor law. how does an apostle negate Gods commands? Corinth is like las vegas.

I think it must have something to do with the culture they were living in because......
Gen 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
Then Clement of Alexandria says that women should cover the face in order to be modest.

 

[Deborah13]

The gentiles were never given the law to live by.

I don't know of anywhere in the Law of Moses that gives a law for a women to cover her head, praying or not, nor does it speak about women having long hair.
It only speaks about beards and I believe that was because of what the pagan nations around them did. ie. Egyptian beards. It is the same for tattoos and cutting the flesh in mourning.

 

[cherovis]

There is a big difference between trimming your nails and removing them altogether. Men can trim their beards. They cannot destroy them and create baldness on there face.

Says who ? Unless you're a Jew, there has never been any such law given to the gentiles. The Jews were given laws to live by because they were God's chosen people, his race of priests. The gentiles have never been given any law. They live & walk by faith alone.

 

[Deborah13]

Says who ? Unless you're a Jew, there has never been any such law given to the gentiles. The Jews were given laws to live by because they were God's chosen people, his race of priests. The gentiles have never been given any law. They live & walk by faith alone.

Mat 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
Mat 22:38 This is the first and great commandment.
Mat 22:39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
Mat 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Jas 2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:

 

[About the Son of God]

I'm not sidestepping anything Deb. As I said, I'm not stating what the head covering is, only that it was worn. Paul doesn't state what constitutes a head covering, but only that she be covered. I'm sure the angles could recognize a wedding band, however, nowhere in Scripture did anyone say to wear a wedding band as a sign of submission. Besides, how is a wedding band a symbol of submission when both men and women wear one? Who's submitting to who?

Ephesians 5:21 -- submit to one another.

Everyone is in submission to 'another'; It is not just said, wives to the husbands -- but also husbands love the wives as Christ gave himself up for her. And, note carefully, the husband is not master over his own body, but the wife; 1Corinthians 7:4.
There may be different competencies, or rights, over the others body at different times -- but no one escapes serving the other upon request.

Slow down Butch, in the rapid fire exchange I think you're getting mixed up. ( Hen pecked ? )

I agree with you that the principalities and powers are often understood as angels; and I notice that there have been comments concerning whether fallen angels are meant ( Which would bring up passages like Genesis 6:2 ); I'm of the opinion that such passages can also be read as if they meant the authorities that God set upon the earth -- which would be pastors, or governors, or state officials. They do not 'necessarily' mean spiritual angels *alone*. The Gospel itself is called Eu-Angelon (Good Angel, or well message - to speak well / evangelize ). It's where we get the word "evangelization" from in English, but generally humans and not angels are the one who do evangelization. The problem I'm alluding to in Genesis 6:2, and the reason for the fall of those angels, is quite simple -- unmarried, beautiful women who they were able to 'see' all too often.

Now, back to the church setting and Paul:
Pastors are sometimes seduced by women who call attention to themselves. That practical problem existed in Christian churches all the way back to the time of Christ, and still happens today. Paul, remember, was not married -- and wanted to stay single in order to devote his whole life to Christ without worrying about pleasing a wife -- but as a figure of importance in the church, Paul would also have been someone that certain women would have found an irresistible target for making themselves more powerful. The same issue undoubtedly plagued other Pastor's whom Paul consecrated to rule over churches... for he wanted all men to be like himself, unencumbered.

So, I'm not entirely convinced that Paul is citing the created order (alone) when he speaks of principalities, and powers.
He does Cite the created order when he starts talking about Adam and Eve, and it's relationship to salvation;
So, Although Angels do exist, and I'm not ruling out your interpretation ... I think Paul had more immediate problems; such as people becoming obsessed (posessed?) by the desire to prophecy in Church out of turn, and the like. A real Pentecostal melee...

So, I wonder in a practical sense why you think he was concerned about the angels in the first place, unless it had to do with a union of heaven and earth's powers inside the church.

 

[Deborah13]

Pastors are sometimes seduced by women who call attention to themselves. That practical problem existed in Christian churches all the way back to the time of Christ, and still happens today.

I have read countless stories about pastors and priests, that have been given a misplaced authority, over women and even children. They have used this misplaced authority to seduce other men's wives and even with the problem of pedophilia.
When we have churches that teach, all women are subject to all men's authority and submission, as this headcovering scripture could be used, it creates all kinds of problems. We know the wives are to be submissive to their own husbands and children to their own parents. So we think that this headcovering scripture Must be talking about husbands and wives. I don't believe it is.

 

[Edward]

Samson was a manly man, but with long hair, like a woman.

Yeah but he was on a mission from God.

 

[jasonc]

Yeah but he was on a mission from God.

john the Baptist, and the apostle paul took the nazarite vow.

 

[About the Son of God]

I have read countless stories about pastors and priests, that have been given a misplaced authority, over women and even children. They have used this misplaced authority to seduce other men's wives and even with the problem of pedophilia.
When we have churches that teach, all women are subject to all men's authority and submission, as this headcovering scripture could be used, it creates all kinds of problems. We know the wives are to be submissive to their own husbands and children to their own parents. So we think that this headcovering scripture Must be talking about husbands and wives. I don't believe it is.

Uh, yeah. And that is definitely a problem, too.

But I'll point out that Paul is not reprimanding the pastor at Corinth for doing something, he Paul, had already said not to do (1Corinthians 11:2) so that *particular* pastor was not a Pedophile, or woman seducer; rather the problem was the other way around in this particular church and originated in the woman or congregation. There are good pastors, even today, who are led by God's spirit who acts through them -- and the devil certainly does all he can to take them down. I've watched first hand as some unmarried ladies flirted with a few of the pastors I've seen in church eg: to try and get attention when they thought he was cute, so -- it's not reading type knowledge that is the basis of my comment; It's my observation of human nature, and an assumption on my part that some women 'probably' did similar things in Paul's day. I could be wrong, of course... and if you come up with something more solid, biblically, let us all know

You might want to read Ezekiel 44:5-22 , which is talking about rules (temporary?) that God implemented because of abuses that took place in the temple in the past; Of those priests who were still allowed to minister in the temple, notice, specifically, Ezekiel 44:18 -- where the male priests are told to wear coverings upon their head; and compare that to what Paul says is a 'shame' in Corinthians;

Ezekiel 44:18 και κιδαρεις λινας εξουσιν επι ταις κεφαλαις αυτων και περισκελη λινα εξουσιν επι τας οσφυας αυτων και ου περιζωσονται βια

I would caution people, that when scripture (esp. Paul) uses a word like "if", that it's best not to assume the condition is true in general. So 'if' it's a disgrace.... does not mean it *is* a disgrace, and should not be done, everywhere and always.

Also, In 1Corinthians, I notice you mentioned a definition of a word that was translated 'power over', that differs only in a single letter from the word shown here in Ezekiel; eg: A different declension/form of the word (verb vs. noun,etc) I've looked at all the examples and variations on the word, and I don't think it's very well defined in Strongs. But -- Looking at word roots, I think It might be 'ex' (out) 'ousia' (substance), which would be understood to be something belonging, or controlled by a person; (Their dominion/domain) ( 2Kings 20:13, Psalm 114:2, Psalm 136:8, etc. )

So I really question what is meant by 'authority on her head' in the KJV version. It does indeed sound like it might mean a woman-crown ought-to-be-had upon the head, through the 'angels'.

As in permission to wear something through 'messages/missives'. (per-missive mission...).

So -- I might interpret it as a married woman (The context 1Corinthians 11:3 requires a marriage/covenant situation) is to be crowned by an angel of some sort. Just a gentle bonk on the head sort of thing.

I've missed a bit of the thread, and am a bit confused -- why is it that you don't think this is talking about a married woman in 1Corinthians 11:10 ?

 

[Malachi]

Samson was a manly man, but with long hair, like a woman.

Sinthesis, firstly your eisegesis of 1 Cor 11:1-16 needs some work.
Secondly, this passage has nothing to do with the Nazirites, and Samson. The Nazirite vow was a part of the Old Covenant, whereas the letter to the Corinthians is rooted squarely in the New Covenant. Introducing irrelevancies does not help anyone.

There is so much quibbling and unnecessary discussion about something which should be simply obeyed without argument (as Paul says).
1. Christian men are to wear their hair short.
2. Christian women are to leave their hair long.
3. Christian men are to uncover their heads during worhip.
4. Christian women are to cover their hair and their heads during worship.

This teaching is ALL ABOUT HEADSHIP and how it is symbolized within Christian assembles because the holy angels observe what goes on.
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.
We could put these phrases in a more "logical" order thus:
But I would have you know,
the head of Christ is God.
the head of every man is Christ;
the head of the woman is the man;

Most of the posts are going off on tangents but failing to talk about Headship and what it means. Why is there resistance to Headship? Because human beings are rebels at heart, beginning with Adam and Eve. Eve forgot who was her "head" (authority) and thereby brought calamity on the human race. Adam forgot who was his Head, and brought disaster on the human race. Now God says that if you are truly in submission to Christ as a child of God, put aside your rebellion, and recognize God-ordained Headship when you come before the Almighty to worship.

 

[reba]

Mar_6:9 But be shod with sandals; and not put on two coats. very simple and not quibbling ..