Hair cutting and coverings

[brinny]

It appears your objections are based on your own personal interpretations. Like I said in my first reply, I see no need to go beyond how almost all Christians have understood the issue for almost all of Christian history. We either believe that our brothers and sisters in Christ were completely stupid on this issue for so long, or maybe people now are ignoring something obvious in the text.

I pray that God gives you wisdom on this matter.

Not really.

It's based on what is stated in the Bible.

And the issue regarding "head coverings" and/or "cutting of hair" is a "peripheral" issue that is not a "salvation" issue. Nor is it a "sin" issue.

Loving the living God is a "heart" issue. It has nothing to do with "outward appearances".

It can, however, be a "stumbling block" for susceptible brothers and sisters who fear "man's opinions and regulations" rather than "fearing God".

In "fearing God", everything else falls into place.

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." ~Proverbs 9:10

 

[RDKirk]

Loving the living God is a "heart" issue. It has nothing to do with "outward appearances".

It can, however, be a "stumbling block" for susceptible brothers and sisters who fear "man's opinions and regulations" rather than "fearing God".

In "fearing God", everything else falls into place.

I think you may disagree with the extent to which I'd take this, but I see these verses a statements of a central Body of Christ principle:

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Here there is no Gentile or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

And this as a practical accommodation to prevent "...a 'stumbling block' for susceptible brothers and sisters who fear 'man's opinions and regulations' rather than 'fearing God:'"

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

I believe the Ephesians verse has (at least) two purposes, one being that Christians need to practice voluntary submission to someone they can see in order to learn true submission to someone they cannot see (the Lord).

The second, though, IMO is an accommodation to the state of the fallen world and the fact that Christians are ambassadors in it.

It's exactly like the US military in Saudi Arabia following local rules off base in having US military women always in the company of US military men, having US military men do the driving off base, and some other such accommodations to local sensitivities that have no meaning in the US context.

Or, as Sam Johnson put it, "Don't offend with style when you can offend with substance."

I think that in the pure Body of Christ context, the principle is "in Christ there is no difference," but in this fallen world, there may be a necessity to observe these fallen world differences to some extent...which should be frequently reviewed for opportunities to move closer to the actual principle as soon as possible, rather than injecting fallen world mores into the Body of Christ principle.

 

[PollyJetix]

It appears your objections are based on your own personal interpretations. Like I said in my first reply, I see no need to go beyond how almost all Christians have understood the issue for almost all of Christian history. We either believe that our brothers and sisters in Christ were completely stupid on this issue for so long, or maybe people now are ignoring something obvious in the text.

I pray that God gives you wisdom on this matter.

Do you apply the same criteria to understanding the Scriptures on other matters?
For instance, Catholic-style priesthood and infant baptism.
Most of Christianity has been taught and has believed the Catholic-style interpretation for most of our history.

 

[Sammy-San]

There is a whole race of women who are genetically incapable of growing long hair. What of them?



That's how Judean women were already wearing their hair--nothing new about it.



Short hair was the Roman style already--longer hair was the Judean style (a matter of the Mosaic Law), and particularly so for Nazarites. Long hair, in itself, was not a "feminine" hair style in Paul's time except for Roman men.

It's certainly a valid argument that Paul was relating to transvestitism (in both directions): It's improper to for a man to appear as a woman and vice versa. But the specific characteristics of transvestitism--that is, what particular characteristics of clothing and grooming pertain to men and to women respectively--vary from culture to culture, and are not specific to hair length. In each culture, we have to look at which characteristics of clothing and grooming would be transvestite and apply Paul's injunctions accordingly.

So transvestism is merely about the impression you send to others?

Would you view this article as legalism?

Hair Length in the Bible

Paul continues:
Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
-1 Corinthians 11:13-14

Paul is asking questions here to get us to reason these things out and muse on them, which is why he says "judge in yourselves." The word "nature" has many different meanings, and in our society in America today, we often think it to be with animals and plants, but nature in this context refers to the appearance of things, or in other words, as we witness men and women in society.

 

[Sammy-San]

If you check only secular history sources on Corinthian hair styles in the first century, you will find it's not that simple.
Only the rich women had long hair. The poor and the slaves tended to either shear or shave their heads.
Long hair was a fashion statement. It took a lot of time and effort to pile it on the head, weaving it and curling it into ringlets and incredible braids, with jewels and gold strung thru. Of course this took servants, to do it right. And working women and slaves had no time to spend on their hair like this.
This is what Paul warned about, telling women not to wear their hair so elaborately.
But yet, Paul urges all women to have long hair. (The Greek has a little different meaning: "long, decorative tresses.") In other words, Paul was urging Christian women to start a new style. A simple Christian style that does an end-run around the fashions of the day. Simply long hair without any jewelry or gold woven in, and not styled elaborately was an act of humility for a rich woman. But it was a statement of worth for a poor woman or a slave. And all could wear this new style.
What Paul was encouraging was revolutionary.

Another thing Paul was encouraging, was for men NOT to wear their hair as "long, decorative tresses"... because it doesn't honor the Creator if men appear as women. That's a simple precept from long before the Gospel was given.
We are no longer under the law, but it IS an abomination for men to wear drag. And feminine hair styles is the same as drag.

Both of these principles really do have application today.

Do you think there is a feminine equivalent of that ?

It reminds me of how there is really no "masculine" clothing-women wear suits.

 

[RDKirk]

So transvestism is merely about the impression you send to others?

Would you view this article as legalism?

Hair Length in the Bible

"Legalism" is the belief that by performing certain acts ("works") one is able to obligate God to save them, as though under the Law: "A workman is worth his wages." However, Paul confirms that the wage we deserve for all our works is death. So anyone who expects to be paid by God according to his performance of any particular acts can expect nothing but death as the wage for his work. Our hope is not for our deserved wage of death, our hope is for God's gift of salvation.

That does not mean there is no expectation someone given the gift of salvation should not exhibit obedience to his Lord, whatever his Lord might command.

Ah, but what are those commands...and are they always exactly the same for every servant of the Lord? And even if they are the same, is obedience to them always manifest exactly the same way for every servant of the Lord?

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. -- Romans 14

These verses tell me two things. First, within the Body of Christ there are such things as "disputable matters." That is, there are matters upon which we within the Body of Christ might have valid disputes.

"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." -- 2 Corinthians 13. This is the very most basic principle of hermeneutics, itself repeated multiple times in the Bible, thus proving itself to be true.

Some things are not disputable within the Body because scripture proves them conclusively through multiple definite witnesses--like the fact that Jesus definitely died. But there are things that are validly disputable--scripture does not prove them conclusively through multiple definite witnesses, such as the eating of meat.

Those things members of the Body may dispute without quarreling. The problem is not having such disputable differences, but in coming to devisiveness over them.

These verses also tell me that based on one's level of faith, obedience for one person may involve different acts than obedience for another, and both are proper exhibitions of obedience for each person. For one man, eating meat is the obedient thing to do, for another not eating meat is the obedience thing to do--and both of them are right.

I suspect that Peter never cut his Jewish forelocks, and was probably not the only early 1st century Hebraic Christian who did not.

 

[Sammy-San]

"Legalism" is the belief that by performing certain acts ("works") one is able to obligate God to save them, as though under the Law: "A workman is worth his wages." However, Paul confirms that the wage we deserve for all our works is death. So anyone who expects to be paid by God according to his performance of any particular acts can expect nothing but death as the wage for his work. Our hope is not for our deserved wage of death, our hope is for God's gift of salvation.

That does not mean there is no expectation someone given the gift of salvation should not exhibit obedience to his Lord, whatever his Lord might command.

Ah, but what are those commands...and are they always exactly the same for every servant of the Lord? And even if they are the same, is obedience to them always manifest exactly the same way for every servant of the Lord?

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.

One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.

The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them.

Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. -- Romans 14

These verses tell me two things. First, within the Body of Christ there are such things as "disputable matters." That is, there are matters upon which we within the Body of Christ might have valid disputes.

"Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." -- 2 Corinthians 13. This is the very most basic principle of hermeneutics, itself repeated multiple times in the Bible, thus proving itself to be true.

Some things are not disputable within the Body because scripture proves them conclusively through multiple definite witnesses--like the fact that Jesus definitely died. But there are things that are validly disputable--scripture does not prove them conclusively through multiple definite witnesses, such as the eating of meat.

Those things members of the Body may dispute without quarreling. The problem is not having such disputable differences, but in coming to devisiveness over them.

These verses also tell me that based on one's level of faith, obedience for one person may involve different acts than obedience for another, and both are proper exhibitions of obedience for each person. For one man, eating meat is the obedient thing to do, for another not eating meat is the obedience thing to do--and both of them are right.

I suspect that Peter never cut his Jewish forelocks, and was probably not the only early 1st century Hebraic Christian who did not.

Does Hebraic Christian mean one who doesn't follow the Mosaic Law?

Also, regarding the Corinthians verse about long hair, you wouldn't argue men growing hair isn't bibical? It says it is shameful, so at least it doesn't seem keeping in accordance with being pleasing to God.

But then again people say eating communion unworthily can cause sickness or death. Interperting the bible properly is hard.

 

[RDKirk]

Does Hebraic Christian mean one who doesn't follow the Mosaic Law?

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. -- Acts 6

The group I've bolded as referenced "Hebrews" are the ones I'm talking about.

 

[Sammy-San]

Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. -- Acts 6

The group I've bolded as referenced "Hebrews" are the ones I'm talking about.

Were they Jewish?

 

[Sam91]

I would cover my head if more people did it. My reason for not doing it is humility. I recognise I do not understand the verse if out of the number of churches I have been to, not many ladies cover their heads.

I wouldn't want to start covering mine and distracting other people from having there eyes on the Lord. Because if asked I would honestly point out the chapter of Corinthians. I would not be acting in good will to those around me making them feel criticised or like they misinterpret the bible for something I am unsure of.

One thing I am sure of though is that God searches the heart of those worshipping Him and not just outer appearance. I am as convinced as I can be that my actions are correct for my situation and haven't felt convicted yet. Not even when reading said passage. I only ever had a head debate on it and felt like the issue was over... for now.

 

[RDKirk]

Were they Jewish?

I referred to Peter's "Jewish forelocks," so the question to my reference would be "Was Peter a Jew?" The answer to that:

Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. Acts 10

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew...." -- Galatians 2

 

[RDKirk]

Does Hebraic Christian mean one who doesn't follow the Mosaic Law?

Not with regard to the Jews who believed in Christ in the congregation at Jerusalem.

All Jewish men were to keep at least their forelocks long and a Nazirite kept all his hair long. Samson also kept his hair long. There is no OT suggestion that men were to keep their hair short.

The only admonition against long hair was from Paul speaking specifically to Romans--whose culture dictated that men keep their hair short.

 

[Sammy-San]

I referred to Peter's "Jewish forelocks," so the question to my reference would be "Was Peter a Jew?" The answer to that:

Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I myself am also a man.” And as he talked with him, he went in and found many who had come together. Then he said to them, “You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean. Therefore I came without objection as soon as I was sent for. Acts 10

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, "You are a Jew...." -- Galatians 2

Was the article on long hair legalism?

 

[RDKirk]

Was the article on long hair legalism?

No, it was baseless rule-making. The author made it clear up front that it was not a salvational issue, which is what legalism is.

 

[Sammy-San]

No, it was baseless rule-making. The author made it clear up front that it was not a salvational issue, which is what legalism is.

Why did you disagree with the rules he made?

 

[RDKirk]

Why did you disagree with the rules he made?

See my post #86 again.

 

[PollyJetix]

Do you think there is a feminine equivalent of that ?

It reminds me of how there is really no "masculine" clothing-women wear suits.

Our culture has been dismantling the idea of gender-specific clothing for a long, long time.
It was the Roaring Twenties that introduced pants on women (they called them pajamas even though they were designed for day wear.) Very few women dared to break the societal rules of good behavior, and wear pants... but over the years, our sensibilities have changed, until we think it strange that someone would have a problem with a woman wearing pants.

Yet, there is the matter of a suit with a tie.
Any woman who wears a suit with a tie, is pushing into male territory.
It's how "male-role" lesbians dress. Like Ellen Degenerate.

On the fashion catwalks of this year, men are sporting pink lacy shirts, with fabric roses at the throat... rounded peter-pan collars... and even skirts.
The mood about men's fashions are exactly how it was in the 1920's about women's fashions... Only it's moving much faster.

Europe already has men who wear women-style skirts for daily wear... straight men, not gays.
Red, flowing, sweeping skirts. Skirts that have been up until lately, only for women.

What makes it okay? Time?
In another hundred years, will it be okay for there to be no clothing that is specifically recognized as for one gender or the other?

Isn't Satan the author of most of fashion? It's either high necklines and miniskirts, or high splits... or plunging necklines, and flowing, long skirts... nothing can be modest. It seems every piece of fashion is designed to "market" sexual appeal. Fashion is all about putting the self on display. And that's opposite to the spirit of Christ.

What the world says is right, isn't necessarily right.
What they say is acceptable, isn't necessarily acceptable to God.
Even in what we wear.

Because (ask any fashion designer) what you wear is a statement.
Clothing is a language.

 

[Sammy-San]

Our culture has been dismantling the idea of gender-specific clothing for a long, long time.
It was the Roaring Twenties that introduced pants on women (they called them pajamas even though they were designed for day wear.) Very few women dared to break the societal rules of good behavior, and wear pants... but over the years, our sensibilities have changed, until we think it strange that someone would have a problem with a woman wearing pants.

Yet, there is the matter of a suit with a tie.
Any woman who wears a suit with a tie, is pushing into male territory.
It's how "male-role" lesbians dress. Like Ellen Degenerate.

On the fashion catwalks of this year, men are sporting pink lacy shirts, with fabric roses at the throat... rounded peter-pan collars... and even skirts.
The mood about men's fashions are exactly how it was in the 1920's about women's fashions... Only it's moving much faster.

Europe already has men who wear women-style skirts for daily wear... straight men, not gays.
Red, flowing, sweeping skirts. Skirts that have been up until lately, only for women.

What makes it okay? Time?
In another hundred years, will it be okay for there to be no clothing that is specifically recognized as for one gender or the other?

Isn't Satan the author of most of fashion? It's either high necklines and miniskirts, or high splits... or plunging necklines, and flowing, long skirts... nothing can be modest. It seems every piece of fashion is designed to "market" sexual appeal. Fashion is all about putting the self on display. And that's opposite to the spirit of Christ.

What the world says is right, isn't necessarily right.
What they say is acceptable, isn't necessarily acceptable to God.
Even in what we wear.

Because (ask any fashion designer) what you wear is a statement.
Clothing is a language.

What makes suits masculine and skirts feminine-are you implying girls wearing suits is cross dressing?

 

[PollyJetix]

What makes suits masculine and skirts feminine-are you implying girls wearing suits is cross dressing?

Are you implying that Ellen Degenerate doesn't dress the way she does to reflect the fact that she wishes she were a male?

 

[Sammy-San]

Are you implying that Ellen Degenerate doesn't dress the way she does to reflect the fact that she wishes she were a male?

Do you think bibically masculine and feminine exist-people say nurturing and comforting is feminine.

Wouldn't plunging necklines be nudity based on Ezekiel 16:7? That is more than simply being immodest.

Regarding what you said on statements-it reminds me of how demons may not necessarily look the way they are portrayed in Halloween costumes but the fact people are intentionally glorifying it is wrong.