Men with long hair, woman with no head covering

[JohannineScholar]

Paul is not God. Paul's opinions about hairstyles in a Greek Church 2000 years ago are not the words of God and should be completely disregarded. They have no moral lesson or message for people today in that regard, and can lead people astray into thinking there is something wrong with long hair and uncovered heads. There is not. In Paul's Corinthian Church I'm sure he had a point. That point is gone with the wind, and Paul's opinions should not be mistaken for the words of God: they aren't.

However, Paul said, "because of the angels". So Paul, at least, doesn't think he is merely giving a culturally-informed opinion. If we accept his writings as inspired, where does that leave us here?

 

[Sanoy]

It may be, I am not arguing... but I would need to see some evidence from the time in question showing this is how they thought. I can see the Greeks thinking this, but not the Hebrews and if Paul is dealing with a group that had a pagan background, then perhaps you are correct. I would still need the evidence though. If you ever find any, please tag me. Thanks and blessings!

Norbert posted the podcast info from which I derive that information. It's post #32.
He says start at the 7minute mark to skip the intro stuff. IIRC, in addition to the hair thing, he wants to go two ways with the headcovering. I go with the angels here at the very least. Still not sure about the other option, I would have to check it out again.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't think I misunderstood, though it's been a while since I heard him on it. He appealed to the translation of periballaion (? from memory) as ball, which is a stretch in this context to say the least.

Same here. He does mention what you put above, I do remember that much. But what he is saying regarding Pauls use of hair here is that it is a reflection of the believed science of the time. That science was that hair was hollow and that it was able to suck or draw reproductive fluid towards it. Thus making reproduction less effective for long haired men, and more productive for long haired women. This was also true for the other set of hair...er yeah that one.

 

[SkyWriting]

Regarding men with long hair and nature.
Are men to cut their hair?
Are women to cover their head?
.

Any gender based advice is blasphemy, as well
as treating a sin or sinner different from any other
that "self" is guilty of.

James 4:17
So whoever knows the right thing to do
and fails to do it, for him it is sin.

Mathew 7: 12
A. In everything then,
B. do unto others
C. as you would have them do unto you.
D. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets. (The O.T.)

What does this apply to? A.
What should we do? B.
How should we do this? C.
By what authority is this (N.T.) command? D.

What is the context of this command?



Matthew 22:40
All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments."

Luke 6:31
Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Romans 13:8
Be indebted to no one, except to one another in love, for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.

Romans 13:10
Love does no wrong to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the Law.

Galatians 5:14
The entire Law is fulfilled in a single decree: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

James 2:8
If you really keep the royal law stated in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself," you are doing well.

 

[Friend-of-Jesus]

Hi Brothers and Sisters,

1 Corinthians 11:3-16

I've always had trouble understanding what Paul is stating.

Regarding men with long hair and nature.

Nature has it that hair grows and does not stop growing.

Nature within culture are it's customs e.g. custom for men to cut their hair.

What is natural?

Regarding women and makeup, this is in no way natural to my understanding, it is artificial beautifying.

the book of Enoch talks about Azazel teaching man the beautifying of the eyes.

Enoch 6

So what are we to do brothers and sister?

Are men to cut their hair?

Are women to cover their head?

Is "makeup" worldly?

I seek discussion, teaching and understanding.

Many thanks brethren.

Yes. Men must be with short hair. Women must cover their heads. No makeup as it's sinful and against God's command.

 

[Ken Rank]

I see nothing in scripture saying that it is a rule or even a custom for the Israelite community to cover their heads.

That is my point. There is no commandment to do so... the covering of the head came along through rabbinic decision long after Christianity was established. I believe, as do others, that the addition of the head covering for a man is directly a response to Paul's comments. However, Paul is dealing with authority in that chapter, more than one actually physically covering his head.

 

[Sanoy]

If you ever find any, please tag me. Thanks and blessings!

Here is the transcript. Might be quicker on your time since you can scan through.

 

[Ken Rank]

Here is the transcript. Might be quicker on your time since you can scan through.

I started listening but my time is limited... thanks!! Until I read through and am convinced otherwise, I will stick with the authority issue. To the Hebrew in that day (today too, but especially then) the authority structure of the family was paramount. It was a picture of our relationship to God, and it also created a scenario that maintained "shalom" if you will. So if the head of a woman is man, and the head covering was a symbol of that, then the head covering indicates that she has an authority (husband or dad) over her. She would then be off limits to another man... or even an angel. And again, with the "sons of God" being a term that only appears in Genesis 6 (mating with human women) and Job where they petition for Job with Satan present, and with Enoch outright revealing them to be fallen angels.... then the head covering "especially because of the angels" was a sign to them that the woman in question was off limits to them. This is consistent with Semitic (especially Hebrew) culture in that day.

Perhaps we are dealing with more in that those in Corinth were not Jews, but that would add to the reason... no replace it. So, I am saying... we both could be correct.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

That is my point. There is no commandment to do so... the covering of the head came along through rabbinic decision long after Christianity was established. I believe, as do others, that the addition of the head covering for a man is directly a response to Paul's comments. However, Paul is dealing with authority in that chapter, more than one actually physically covering his head.

that would be what i'm getting at. a command for men to cover their heads too...I don't see it.

 

[Ken Rank]

that would be what i'm getting at. a command for men to cover their heads too...I don't see it.

It isn't there... our "head" our 'covering' is Christ. If you want to cover your head physically (with a hat or something) that is fine... that isn't what the early part of the chapter is dealing with. Blessings.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

1Co 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.

Some translations say authority instead of power.

Because of the angels? It reminded me of this verse:

Revelation 9:7,8 The locusts looked like horses prepared for battle. On their heads they wore something like crowns of gold, and their faces resembled human faces. Their hair was like women's hair, and their teeth were like lions' teeth.

Emphasis added, of course. It does beg the question as to what the locusts are, but if they were angelic, fallen or otherwise, then I'd be curious to know if it ties into the first verse, at all. Maybe not.

 

[Vicomte13]

However, Paul said, "because of the angels". So Paul, at least, doesn't think he is merely giving a culturally-informed opinion. If we accept his writings as inspired, where does that leave us here?

It leaves me ignoring him on this and several other cultural points. "Inspired by God" does not equal "taking dictation from God on legislative details". The word "inspired" means exactly the same thing in this context as looking at a Van Gogh painting and saying that it was inspired by the glorious starlight and moonlight. It was. That does not mean that it's a photograph of the starry night. God inspired Paul to go out there and preach, and suffer, and bring the message of Jesus, the good news about life after death, to a great number of people. Paul was inspired by this to write letters too. That's what "inspiration" means. It doesn't mean that Paul took dictation.

Many Christians - particularly of the sort who post on Christian Forums - believe that "inspired by God" means that the writer took dictation, and that every word that happens to be written in the scrolls and letters that happen to have been chosen to be sewn together as the "Bible" is all direct dictation from God, and all conveys legislative intent.

There is no basis for believing that other than tradition that has its roots in the desire to believe that.

I don't believe that, so where I am left is observing what Paul had to say about long hair in Corinth and saying "Thanks, Paul. We disagree with you on this point. We wear the hair that God gave us long, like Jesus wore his." (And to see how Jesus wore his, long, we need merely look at the Shroud of Turin.)

If you happen to be among those who hold that "divine inspiration" means that every word is dictated law from God, well, then I guess you have to condemn long hair as shameful, and uncovered women speaking in Church as unacceptable. And you need to think that it's best (though not obligatory) for the clergy to remain unmarried (as Paul was). And you need to think that remarriage after divorce is adultery. And you need to think that God commands the wealthy to give everything they have away if they want to serve God. All of those things are also in the New Testament.

The hair thing is a minor detail from Paul. Jesus forbids divorce. He forbids remarriage after divorce. And he tells the rich boy to sell everything and give it away, and warns that the rich have no chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[pescador]

I really don't understand the issue here. Paul wrote to the church in Corinth 2000 years ago. They had an entirely different zeitgeist then we have now.

He wrote, "Any man who prays or prophesies with his head covered disgraces his head. But any woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered disgraces her head, for it is one and the same thing as having a shaved head." Those are activities in church, not outside of it. He contradicts himself a little later in the letter by saying, "As in all the churches of the saints, the women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak". First he says they should cover their heads while praying or prophesying, then he says that they shouldn't speak at all.

He is clearly talking about the social and moral conditions that existed in a society that is extremey unlike the world that we live in. His writing about head coverings and speaking in church has no bearing on the society in which we live today. By requiring this in the 21st Century it is putting people back under a law that has no application to Christians today.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

Metaphorically long hair on a man represents being in the feminine role, whereas short hair on a woman represents being in a masculine role. So Paul is asking the question, which is better? Should a woman take on the man's role or should the man do his job? Clearly femininity in a woman is the gift of God to man and is her glory. But for a man to forsake his position as head of his house it is a shame to that man.

Thank you Alex for your detailed reply.

One question re the metaphoric position on men with long hair.

A man naturally grows a beard.

If a man has a beard and long hair it cant really cause confusion?

These days the gender roles are under attack and you see all kinds of weird things from both sexes which cause confusion and to be honest IMO an abomination of God's creative order.

 

[I'm_Sorry]

(And to see how Jesus wore his, long, we need merely look at the Shroud of Turin.)

How can we be sure this shroud was the covering of Jesus' body prior to resurrection?

 

[AlexDTX]

Thank you Alex for your detailed reply.

One question re the metaphoric position on men with long hair.

A man naturally grows a beard.

If a man has a beard and long hair it cant really cause confusion?

These days the gender roles are under attack and you see all kinds of weird things from both sexes which cause confusion and to be honest IMO an abomination of God's creative order.

I thought about commenting on men's beards but it was not directly related to the topic of Chapter 11. We always see Jesus portrayed with long hair. But we really don't know if he had long hair. It is not Jewish custom for men to have long hair, but it is a commandment in the Old Testament for Jewish men to grow their beards. Most of the orthodox Jews I have met have had long beards and short hair. I once read that the reason Jesus is painted with long hair is because it was part of some cult practice, of which I do not remember what the writer referred to. Nonetheless, it is probable that Jesus had short hair with a beard.

There is a story, I don't remember where in the Bible, when Jewish men were abducted and their beards were shaved off. They were so ashamed, that King David told them to remain where they were until their beards regrew.

Of course, none of this is relevant to my understanding of Chapter 11 since I believe the issue of hair metaphorically represents the headship order that God has set up and hair being a symbol of hindrance to communication with God.

 

[Vicomte13]

How can we be sure this shroud was the covering of Jesus' body prior to resurrection?

Because the image itself cannot be produced by any man-made process, and there is no natural process that can produce it like that either. It is as though the snowflakes in a snowstorm spontaneously formed a perfect 3-D replica, in photographic negative, of the Statue of Liberty. Can't happen: law of entropy absolutely prevents that.

But there it is - the image of the battered body of Christ, proportionally correct, with tiny details accurate, formed by a process that cannot exist either in nature or by the hand of man. We do not have the power, with the computers of today, to replicate that image in the substances and manner that it came to be. It's impossible. But there it is - a true miracle. It can't be a fraud because men can't do that at all. And it can't be a freak of nature because it is outside of nature. It's a miracle in and of itself. And look who it is.

The nature and features of the Shroud image make the Shroud self-authenticating. That's how we can be sure the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ - the fact that it's a miracle that such an impossible image exists at all. And from the image we see that Christ had long hair.

So whatever Paul's objections were to long hair are rendered irrelevant: Jesus had long hair, so no, long hair is not shameful. This teaches us something about how to read the Bible also, about what Scripture is and what it is not.

The fact that Jesus had long hair MEANS that the words of letters by Apostles that pertain to cultural things like hair length, for example, are not divine laws for mankind for all time.

 

[GirdYourLoins]

Make up and perfume is of the devil.

Let me explain. Perfume in particular and to a lesser extent make is full of toxic chemicals including toxins, neuro toxins, hormone inhibitors and is a narcotic in that it is an addictive drug. Many of the chemicals known to be used are listed poisons like formaldehyde, cyanide, etc. Amongst the know symptoms of expose to perfume include lowering sperm count in men. It can cause infertility in boys/men if they were exposed to it by their mother wearing it when pregnent with them. I read a BBC article the other day saying the sperm count in US, UK and Australia is half what it was 40 years ago.

 

[Sir Robbins]

Thank you for replying

Is this what Paul is stating?

I cant seem to read that from the text.

He's saying its not ok.

What does Paul mean by "doesn't nature itself teach you"

my understanding is Paul stated to the Corinth church the statement that men having long hair is shameful during a time period when there was a cult of men who were intentionally trying to be women in appearance and behavior. It was something discouraged during that time period and came from the mouth of a man, not of God himself (not doubting Paul's judgement mind you), just not the words of God himself. I have had long hair forever and I am not trying to wear a dress or put make up on as what was happening in that time period with that cult

 

[Norbert L]

Not the silly one where he thinks the hair actually means man's genitalia?

I would also say you have misunderstood what he is saying. But I agree it sounds silly in today's world. No where in the video does anyone claim or think the hair actually means man's genitalia. What is claimed, back then people associated it with the reproductive system and uncovered hair during a religious gathering would be frowned upon.

Or look at it this way. Up until recently public breastfeeding in some countries was viewed as inappropriate behavior. If I'm not mistaken some churches offer private nursing rooms for members who are new mothers and breast feed.