Is it ok for a man to pray while wearing a head covering? Paul told the Corinthians it was NOT ok.

[Always Believing]

Not correct:

5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

This is not talking a mans haircut- be to have her head bald! In many pagan cultures that would equate to being a temple prostitute.

And so you agree it's not speaking to men, but only women. Men having short hair does not mean they ought to shave it all off. Especially since men with long hair is a shame. Men are supposed to have short hair to please God, not women.

Be not covered is hair to short to cover the head. Short hair like a man.

Women cutting their hair short enough, that it is not long enough anymore to cover their heads playing games with God, and so He says just to shave it off and show themselves the temple prostitutes that they are. At least in regards to not having long hair pleasing to God.

This how long a womans hair is(if it will cover her head) is your argument,

True. That's what Paul comes to when speaking first of head covers.

but not what Paul what! Paul said when a woman prays or prophesies she needs to have a man made covering on her head!

He begins with head coverings of the day, and then comes to God's NT teaching on length of hair for men and women. Christ shows women don't have to wear head covers for His sake, because He gives them long enough hair to be for their covering.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Long hair is a glory to her in sight of God. Short hair is not. If it's not a glory to God, then it is dishonoring God. This is no more to be debated.

The length of hair is the only rule of Christ pertaining to how God wants men and women to look different and be readily recognizable as a man or woman.

Little children used to blurt out how men look like women, because of their long hippy hair. Now that's rare, because hippies got into churches and pulpits and lukewarm ministers ceased teaching against men having long hair. Now they don't even care about Christian women with butch haircuts. If you don't preach against it, you consent to it.

Period. Look it up in the greek. Then you won't have to resort to describing how long hair is is it a mans or womans cut is it enough hair to cover her head etc.

The Bible teaches it, so do I. I defend the gospel of Christ in all points, which includes length of hair for men and women. What God does not say is exactly when the hair is long enough to cover the head, or exactly when the hair is too short to do so. That's because he doesn't draw maps in detail for His people who want to please Him in all things, and so we have simple enough judgment to know the difference for ourselves.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And so you agree it's not speaking to men, but only women. Men having short hair does not mean they ought to shave it all off. Especially since men with long hair is a shame. Men are supposed to have short hair to please God, not women.

Be not covered is hair to short to cover the head. Short hair like a man.

Women cutting their hair short enough, that it is not long enough anymore to cover their heads playing games with God, and so He says just to shave it off and show themselves the temple prostitutes that they are. At least in regards to not having long hair pleasing to God.

No this is not what I am saying. the word covering for a man when praying and when a woman prays is a different word for having hair as a covering. A man should not have a man made covering on his head during prayer. A woman must have a man made head covering on her head during prayer.

If you demand hair is the covering in all uses here- then a man must be bald. but it isn't so that is irrelevant

True. That's what Paul comes to when speaking first of head covers.

Not at all. Paul uses a different word which means a veil or robe. something man made.

He begins with head coverings of the day, and then comes to God's NT teaching on length of hair for men and women. Christ shows women don't have to wear head covers for His sake, because He gives them long enough hair to be for their covering.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Long hair is a glory to her in sight of God. Short hair is not. If it's not a glory to God, then it is dishonoring God. This is no more to be debated.

The length of hair is the only rule of Christ pertaining to how God wants men and women to look different and be readily recognizable as a man or woman.

Little children used to blurt out how men look like women, because of their long hippy hair. Now that's rare, because hippies got into churches and pulpits and lukewarm ministers ceased teaching against men having long hair. Now they don't even care about Christian women with butch haircuts. If you don't preach against it, you consent to it.

.Once again hair as a covering and a covering during prayer and prophesy are two different words. Length of hair is irrelevant. then yo have hair police and where in teh bible does it tell us when a mans hair is too long and when a womans hair is too short!

The Bible teaches it, so do I. I defend the gospel of Christ in all points, which includes length of hair for men and women. What God does not say is exactly when the hair is long enough to cover the head, or exactly when the hair is too short to do so. That's because he doesn't draw maps in detail for His people who want to please Him in all things, and so we have simple enough judgment to know the difference for ourselves.

So God will allow different rules for different peoples depending on their upbringing and culture? You are saying that in one culture if it is determined that if a mans hair covers his ears it is too long- that is sin. and if a womans hair goes higher than her shoulders it is sin. While in other cultures it is not?

Ands as this is talking specifically about being in church- can a woman shorten her hair after service is over?

But iof you read the greek you would see Paul used two different words to describe thet wo coverings spoken of (man made and hair)

 

[Always Believing]

No this is not what I am saying. the word covering for a man when praying and when a woman prays is a different word for having hair as a covering.

True. The word cover is not the word hair.

A man should not have a man made covering on his head during prayer.

This is a Christian custom, not the rule of Christ. A man praying for his life with a hat on is not dishonoring God, whether it's a helmet in a foxhole or a cap in a wrecked car. It's a matter of traditional politeness for men, not a doctrine to teach.

A woman must have a man made head covering on her head during prayer.

False. Paul turns to hair as a covering, so as to dismiss the custom of women needing to put on a veil to pray, prophesy, or even speak among men. Jesus is liberating women from the customs of men, that say it is shameful for a woman to show her face openly in public. That was a normal custom at the time, to which Islam expands into burkas. Islamic burkas are not 'overdoing' a rule of Christ, because there is no such rule of Christ for women needing any head scarfs and veils, other than hair. God has made it clear that their hair is now the only covering they need.

You dismiss the rule of Christ against women getting haircuts, and instead still enforce an old pagan custom, that Christ has gotten rid of.

If you demand hair is the covering in all uses here- then a man must be bald. but it isn't so that is irrelevant

You misstate what a teach, and then draw a false conclusion from it.

Not at all. Paul uses a different word which means a veil or robe. something man made.

Not until the end of the teaching, when he makes hair to be sufficient, with not need for veils and wraps.

.Once again hair as a covering and a covering during prayer and prophesy are two different words.

True. And hair does away with any need for the other.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The word covering here is the first time that applies to veils and wraps. Christ says the long hair of the woman is the only veil she needs, including while praying and prophesying.

Length of hair is irrelevant.

False teaching and rejection of NT Scripture:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

then yo have hair police and where in teh bible does it tell us when a mans hair is too long and when a womans hair is too short!

When I have authority over others in the ministry, I enforce the rule of Christ in order to minister. No tied back pig tales of men, nor butch hair of women minister anything under my authority. The men get haircuts, and the women wear some other cover. But if the woman is purposely cutting her hair butch, she ministers nothing at all. Otherwise, I preach the truth, and like anything else, let people do what they want. It's not the minister's business to try and enforce the rule of God on the hearers and believers, upon whom only God has authority.

So God will allow different rules for different peoples depending on their upbringing and culture?

No. Christ's rule is not based upon local custom, not in manner of life, dress, hair, etc... I have explained how God does not draw lines, because He knows the sincere hearted will take care of it for themselves. I would keep a man's haircut, while living among long-haired Achaeans, and my wife would keep her hair long among Lesbian Amazons with butch haircuts.

Guess what. Christian men with long hair are hippies, and Christian women with men's haircuts are butch. Lukewarm ministers stay away from the whole issue as being irrelevant to them, though it is relevant enough to Christ to condemn it as shameful and dishonoring of God.

Ands as this is talking specifically about being in church- can a woman shorten her hair after service is over?

Hypocrites behave one way in the church building and another outside. If a woman cannot physically grow nor have long hair, then she can wear a covering veil or wig. If a woman becomes saved with short hair, she can cover her head until the hair grows long. Women can wear whatever covers and veils they want, with or without long hair, but it's not necessary.

Men can never have long hair, unless they are in chains with no way to cut it. They don't have to pull it out. It's just like being stripped naked in public for medical attention. There is no shame in that. The power of God for Samson was not in his hair, but in his obedience.

But iof you read the greek you would see Paul used two different words to describe thet wo coverings spoken of (man made and hair)

True. The first covering is nonspecific, but just anything that covers or hides. (Katakalupto) Darkness could count for such a covering, such as under cover of darkness. But when hair is made for a cover, it now for the first time specifically applies to wraps and veils. (Peribolaion)

There are two different words for covering, and long hair of women supplies for both. Any Christian custom forcing women to wear veils or wraps at any time, is a sham.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

This is a Christian custom, not the rule of Christ. A man praying for his life with a hat on is not dishonoring God, whether it's a helmet in a foxhole or a cap in a wrecked car. It's a matter of traditional politeness for men, not a doctrine to teach.

As long as you use custom as paul did and mean teaching. And we are talking about rules in the assembly, not these exigent circumstances. Just like the thief on the cross was not baptized but saved etc.

False. Paul turns to hair as a covering, so as to dismiss the custom of women needing to put on a veil to pray, prophesy, or even speak among men. Jesus is liberating women from the customs of men, that say it is shameful for a woman to show her face openly in public. That was a normal custom at the time, to which Islam expands into burkas. Islamic burkas are not 'overdoing' a rule of Christ, because there is no such rule of Christ for women needing any head scarfs and veils, other than hair. God has made it clear that their hair is now the only covering they need.

You dismiss the rule of Christ against women getting haircuts, and instead still enforce an old pagan custom, that Christ has gotten rid of.

Check the Greek! Paul ordered women in the assembly of saints to have a man made covering. Hair as a covering is a different word and Paul cites it as an example not as the covering. And many cultures in Jesus day , women did not cover their faces or even have a simple covering on top of their head. the hiding of the face came with Muhammed and the birth of Islam.

False teaching and rejection of NT Scripture:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

NO I accept the SCripture. what I rejected was your definition of it as the evidence for this passage. How long is too long. If a man took a nazarite vow was he dishonoring god when he did not shave his head? How long is too long. What is the biblical measuring stick.

When I have authority over others in the ministry, I enforce the rule of Christ in order to minister. No tied back pig tales of men, nor butch hair of women minister anything under my authority. The men get haircuts, and the women wear some other cover. But if the woman is purposely cutting her hair butch, she ministers nothing at all. Otherwise, I preach the truth, and like anything else, let people do what they want. It's not the minister's business to try and enforce the rule of God on the hearers and believers, upon whom only God has authority.

Well I agree. A married woman should never have shorter hair than her husband. I cannot argue against shorter hair cuts as long as it is longer than her husbands.

Men is now a subjective issue as thier is no biblical standard for how long! and Yes women should veil their head in service for honor and respect.

Guess what. Christian men with long hair are hippies, and Christian women with men's haircuts are butch. Lukewarm ministers stay away from the whole issue as being irrelevant to them, though it is relevant enough to Christ to condemn it as shameful and dishonoring of God.

Would you have men get haircuts before they accept Christ? Like I said this is a small issue n the church. No church or individual will lose their salvation or fall under condemnation, but it will rob a local assembly of some sort of blessing if it is out of order.

Hypocrites behave one way in the church building and another outside. If a woman cannot physically grow nor have long hair, then she can wear a covering veil or wig. If a woman becomes saved with short hair, she can cover her head until the hair grows long. Women can wear whatever covers and veils they want, with or without long hair, but it's not necessary.

Men can never have long hair, unless they are in chains with no way to cut it. They don't have to pull it out. It's just like being stripped naked in public for medical attention. There is no shame in that. The power of God for Samson was not in his hair, but in his obedience.

Well I would like your definition of long for men.

If a woman has short hair or even bald through no fault of her own- there is no command to cover her head in public. IN church whether she have hair or no- she needs a man made covering as Paul commands here.

True. The first covering is nonspecific, but just anything that covers or hides. (Katakalupto) Darkness could count for such a covering, such as under cover of darkness. But when hair is made for a cover, it now for the first time specifically applies to wraps and veils. (Peribolaion)

There are two different words for covering, and long hair of women supplies for both. Any Christian custom forcing women to wear veils or wraps at any time, is a sham.

No hair does not satisfy for both words. One is clearly in greek a man made covering.

 

[Jim B]

Why is this trvia still being discussed?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Why is this trvia still being discussed?

Because the little foxes spoil the vine. and when one is willing to redefine Scriptures in a small issue, how long before it hits large issues?

Look what we have today

1. Unrepentant homosexuals welcomed as believers
2. Gay preachers.
3. Women preachers.
4. People living together apart from marriage

and as we grow coloser to the rapture more and more truths will fall in the streets of christendom.

 

[Jim B]

Because the little foxes spoil the vine. and when one is willing to redefine Scriptures in a small issue, how long before it hits large issues?

Look what we have today

1. Unrepentant homosexuals welcomed as believers
2. Gay preachers.
3. Women preachers.
4. People living together apart from marriage

and as we grow coloser to the rapture more and more truths will fall in the streets of christendom.

Are you serious? This is what you are saying about the OP? A man praying with his head covered or not?

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Chicken Little

BTW, why are you so hung up about homosexuals, gay and women preachers, people living together? Do you have sexual problems? Are you sexist?

Have you forgoteen that in both covenants we are told to love our neighbor?

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Are you serious? This is what you are saying about the OP? A man praying with his head covered or not?

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling!" Chicken Little

BTW, why are you so hung up about homosexuals, gay and women preachers, people living together? Do you have sexual problems? Are you sexist?

Have you forgotten that in both covenants we are told to love our neighbor?

Well it is a command of Scripture and we should obey it. To find justification to disregard a command Paul said was for all the churches of God is to ignore Sripture.

I cited those other things because they are results of also rejecting SCripture as written and then redefining Gods Word to fit the modern whims of culture.

And despite your not so subtle ad- hominess, no, I am not sexist or have any sexual problems thank you.

I am pointing out these issues for they also have been reinterpreted from Scripture to make thee things "acceptable in the church.

Yes we are to love. I welcome gays in my church to come and listen to the gospel in the hopes they may be saved! But know this; No unrepentant practicing homosexual is saved. SCripture is clear! Homosexuality is the result of God giving someone over to a darkened heart, no matter how religious they may act. do I love them? Yes! Do I wish them saved? Yes, but I will not compromise Gods Word to placate the passing whims of culture that wishes to accept unbiblical things and think god okays them.

 

[Jim B]

Well it is a command of Scripture and we should obey it. To find justification to disregard a command Paul said was for all the churches of God is to ignore Sripture.

I cited those other things because they are results of also rejecting SCripture as written and then redefining Gods Word to fit the modern whims of culture.

And despite your not so subtle ad- hominess, no, I am not sexist or have any sexual problems thank you.

I am pointing out these issues for they also have been reinterpreted from Scripture to make thee things "acceptable in the church.

Yes we are to love. I welcome gays in my church to come and listen to the gospel in the hopes they may be saved! But know this; No unrepentant practicing homosexual is saved. SCripture is clear! Homosexuality is the result of God giving someone over to a darkened heart, no matter how religious they may act. do I love them? Yes! Do I wish them saved? Yes, but I will not compromise Gods Word to placate the passing whims of culture that wishes to accept unbiblical things and think god okays them.

If you are putting yourself back under the law as a Christian, you are making a very serious mistake. Paul had authority over the church in Corinth and emphasized that people attending the church should not offend others by their mode of dress. If you think that he was creating a law to be followed about 2,000 years later in a different place and time, you are mistaken.

You are in error by claiming that we should live like people in the 1st century Mediterranean region. Better sell your car and buy a camel or donkey!

As far as your spiel about homosexuals, try understanding John 3:16-18, "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone [LGBTs included] who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, [neither should you!] but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him [LGBTs included] is not condemned The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God."

Romans 3:22b-24, "For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus."

Scripture is clear, whether you agree with it or not.

I won't discuss this issue any further with you since it is off-topic.

 

[Ziggy]

So if the husband is the "covering" for the wife, and Christ is the "covering" of the man,
Should a man have a "covering" on his head when he prays to Christ?

What is this "covering" ?
Should a man go to a Priest or another religious leader to pray to the Lord?

1Co 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

1Co 11:16
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

All I know is Jesus said when you pray go into your closet and God who sees you in secret will reward you in secret.
Why do things have to be so complicated.. lol
Hugs

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You are in error by claiming that we should live like people in the 1st century Mediterranean region. Better sell your car and buy a camel or donkey!

Inane and pointless.

If you are putting yourself back under the law as a Christian, you are making a very serious mistake. Paul had authority over the church in Corinth and emphasized that people attending the church should not offend others by their mode of dress. If you think that he was creating a law to be followed about 2,000 years later in a different place and time, you are mistaken.

Nope! It is not putting oneself back under the Mosaic Law. This is the law of how church should be run. Maybe you would also do away with teh ordinance that pastors can be polygamists or married multiple times as well? After all that is a 2000 year old ordinance!

And Paul was not addressing mode of dress, but honor and respect in the assembly of saints.

As far as your spiel about homosexuals, try understanding John 3:16-18, "For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone [LGBTs included] who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, [neither should you!] but that the world should be saved through him. The one who believes in him [LGBTs included] is not condemned The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God."

I understand it very well thank you ! I also understand very well in 1 Cor. when Paul commanded the church in Corinth to cast out ethe man having sex with his step mother!!!!! I want to see all in the LGBTQ community to come to know Christ as Savior. and once they have there comes a point when they have to acknowledge that lifestyle is an abomination to God and forsake it. To trust in God is not just head knowledge but a transformation of person trhat is growing in the image of Jesus ev eryday!

 

[Always Believing]

As long as you use custom as paul did and mean teaching. And we are talking about rules in the assembly, not these exigent circumstances. Just like the thief on the cross was not baptized but saved etc.

Agreed. We should not wilfully go out of our way to offend the traditions and weak consciences of others, if we are going to be in their assembly and presence.

Check the Greek! Paul ordered women in the assembly of saints to have a man made covering. Hair as a covering is a different word and Paul cites it as an example not as the covering.

I've already corrected this.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The only time Paul speaks of a man made covering, is when God gives women faith for it.

You allow for butch haircuts of women, and you enslave women with man's ancient tradition of made coverings.

God never commands in the law of Moses, women to wear veils in His congregation. Paul is addressing a pagan tradition, that the Jews had adopted for themselves. Moohomed shows it is a sham by making it a greater sham.

And many cultures in Jesus day , women did not cover their faces or even have a simple covering on top of their head.

As I said. Man's cultures, not God's word. Including the Jews that had many such traditions of man.

the hiding of the face came with Muhammed and the birth of Islam.

As I said. A man's tradition on steroids.

How long is too long.

Ask a child.

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

Long is too long on a man.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

Long is good on a woman.

You are now refusing to make a simple judgment of a child, because you don't want to offend anyone.

If a man took a nazarite vow was he dishonoring god when he did not shave his head?

Now you ask a fair question. The law of Moses is not the law of Christ, and in the OT length of hair was not commanded by God, whether short or long. Now in the NT, length of hair is commanded to be a physical distinction between man and woman.

What is the biblical measuring stick.

When it covers the head like a woman.

Ask any child. They'll tell you, because they are not yet corrupted with people pleasing ministry.

Well I agree. A married woman should never have shorter hair than her husband.

Now you are shirking Christ's rule, and making one of your own. Women don't get men's haircuts, whether married or not. The rule is to honor Christ as Head, not just man.

I cannot argue against shorter hair cuts as long as it is longer than her husbands.

Because you don't preach Scripture, but only a faint image of it.

Men is now a subjective issue as thier is no biblical standard for how long!

Not covering the head like a woman.

Just ask an honest child. He or she will tell you examples of it.

and Yes women should veil their head in service for honor and respect.

If the church holds to that man-made tradition, then so be it. I and my wife go elsewhere, where Christians are not playing at honor and respect of God, by traditions of men.

Would you have men get haircuts before they accept Christ?

And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.

No, only baptism and ministry and my household.

Now, in an emergency of possible life and death, if someone were saved and asked to be baptized, then yes.

Even as with Samson, the hair was not the main issue, but rather obedience to God.

Like I said this is a small issue n the church.

It's no issue in your church, because you only preach man's tradition of made veils, and not God's word on length of hair.

No church or individual will lose their salvation or fall under condemnation,

Any willful disobedience after having knowledge of the truth, condemns itself.

but it will rob a local assembly of some sort of blessing if it is out of order.

And here you are at the heart of the matter. You resist, dodge, bob, and weave around the simple truth, because you don't want to offend anyone:

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Well I would like your definition of long for men.

I have one for myself, my house, and my ministry.

Otherwise, people can decide for themselves and let God be the judge. He says women ought have hair long enough for a head covering, and men ought not have long hair covering their heads.

And the shapes of the locusts were like unto horses prepared unto battle; and on their heads were as it were crowns like gold, and their faces were as the faces of men. And they had hair as the hair of women. (Rev 9)

Wow, look at that. Hippies straight out of the pit of hell. :)

If a woman has short hair or even bald through no fault of her own- there is no command to cover her head in public.

Yes, she is, because the rule is not just for assembly of saints, but to honor her man and Christ.

The hair of men and women with God is the rule of Christ now, not a matter of dressing for church or the beach.

IN church whether she have hair or no- she needs a man made covering as Paul commands here.

Your tradition of men's commandments. Paul was addressing a tradition of men, not the law of Moses. I care nothing for men's pretence of honor and respect by artificial means. Especially if the same ones won't teach the rule of Scripture that does honor Christ and God.

No hair does not satisfy for both words. One is clearly in greek a man made covering.

And the only word for a man-made covering and wrap, is when God says He gives hair to women for it.

The word for covering used twice before that could be darkness, where the head cannot be seen. I've already corrected you on this also.

 

[Ziggy]

I thought of a woman's long hair as a wedding vail.
Men don't wear wedding vails.

Oh wait.. they do today don't they?
Politically correct unless we offend them.
Jesus said many will be offended in Him.
Mat 24:10
And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

Now they mutilate their own bodies. You thought long hair was offensive?
And not only their own bodies, but children are being coerced into this abomination.

Pray for the children.
Hugs

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Agreed. We should not wilfully go out of our way to offend the traditions and weak consciences of others, if we are going to be in their assembly and presence.

Well as this is not a custom as we define custom, but a universal teaching for the entire church-= I would not say those wearing coverings had a weak conscience but a strong one.

I've already corrected this.

But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

The only time Paul speaks of a man made covering, is when God gives women faith for it.

You allow for butch haircuts of women, and you enslave women with man's ancient tradition of made coverings.

God never commands in the law of Moses, women to wear veils in His congregation. Paul is addressing a pagan tradition, that the Jews had adopted for themselves. Moohomed shows it is a sham by making it a greater sham.

No, Paul speaks of a man made covering when the church assembles and women should have it on their heads to show respect to God and their husband.

YOu speak of an ancient tradition and yet it was not for Israel though women wore man made coverings for Shabat and for synagogue.

And it is not tradition as we define it, but as the bible defines the original word- an ordinance given for all the church both Jewish and Gentile wing as the church was divided then.

YOur false accusation about me and butch haircuts is simply a lie!

 

[Ziggy]

Deu 21:10
When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deu 21:11
And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deu 21:12
Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deu 21:13
And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Deu 21:14
And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

1Co 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
1Co 11:6
For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
1Co 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

Paul begins with:
1Co 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

These same ordinances come from the OT, except what Paul does is expose another deeper meaning, spiritual behind the "letter" .

1Co 7:10
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
1Co 7:11
But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
1Co 7:12
But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.
1Co 7:13
And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

1Co 7:14
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

What is it about either the husband or the wife that allows this sanctification to "cover" the unbelieving one?
Is it not Faith?

So then:
1Co 11:5
But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.

In the OT the woman is seen as a captive. We could say captive to sin, a sinner.

How can a woman pray or prophesy if she is an unbeliever? Wouldn't this bring shame upon her husband?
But the believing husband is her covering. Or even the believing wife is her unbelieving husbands covering.

And then:
1Co 11:7
For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.

So what is this saying?

If a man has faith and is believing, he is covered by Christ. He has submitted his life to the will of God.
A woman submits herself to the man. (ouch, this don't go over so well with the women libbers) It's what makes us seperate from the world.
But yes, the man is the head of the household and the woman is his helper.
That's how God designed it from the beginning.
Gen 2:18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

The woman is the man's glory on earth. She makes him look good by her willingness to let him lead.
Who can find a virtuous wife?
Her submission to him is her virtue. (submission is such a hard word, it gets a bad rap)

There is no easy way to say any of this without offending somebody. That's just their ego foaming at the mouth anyways.

So consider this:
No woman being unmarried or an unbeliever aught to pray or prophecy with her head uncovered.
She has no authority whether through marriage or through faith to preach on behalf of the church.
But if she be married then her husband is her covering or if she has faith then Christ is her covering.
Either way she is covered unless she is lacking either of these.

An unbelieving husband is covered by his wife's Faith.
An unbelieving wife is covered by her husband's Faith.

Deut chapter 21. The woman is taken captive. If she was taken captive then she must have been under the authority of another.
A pagan culture. One that does not know God.
The shaving of the head and pairing of the nails is her leaving behind her past life. Her glory no longer belongs to another.
She shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her. She must repent.
She is given 30 days to mourn her old life and her old ways.

Kind of like when Israel was taken out of Egypt and a lot of them kept saying.. remember how good we ate?
Num 11:5
We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick:
Num 11:6
But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes.

They were in mourning.
So the woman who is taken captive is also given time to mourn. It's an act of grace.
and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
The husband has now become her saviour through his faith in God.
He is now her covering.

I don't believe Paul is speaking about material coverings... it's just not his way.
But he is trying to teach spiritual understanding by using material things to make a point.

Jhn 3:12
If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
And this he spoke to Nicodemus, the teacher of Israel.

Just an observation I bring to the table.
Bon apetit
Hugs

 

[Always Believing]

No, Paul speaks of a man made covering when the church assembles and women should have it on their heads to show respect to God and their husband.

You reject the Scripture I've given twice showing God gives hair for it to women. And you give no Scripture of old to justify an old Jewish tradition not found in the law of Moses.

Heresy after the first and second admonition reject.

YOu speak of an ancient tradition and yet it was not for Israel though women wore man made coverings for Shabat and for synagogue.

And so you acknowledge it was a tradition Jews made for themselves, like many others not in the law, and you do the same. And you do so despite the rule of Christ plainly saying the long hair is given by God for women, rather than the Jewish-made tradition of head veils.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Your tradition is a vain show of respect and honor, just as the Jews of old for Jewish 'Shabat'-Babat.

And it is not tradition as we define it, but as the bible defines the original word- an ordinance given for all the church both Jewish and Gentile wing as the church was divided then.

It's your tradition and ordinance, not God's. And it rejects the rule of Christ for your own traditional ordinance.

YOur false accusation about me and butch haircuts is simply a lie!

It's true.

Your church's personal tradition of head veils is a vain show of people, who do not teach the tradition of Christ as written, that women's hair is given for that covering show of honor to God.

Insteady you play like old Jewish Shabataneers.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

And so you acknowledge it was a tradition Jews made for themselves, like many others not in the law, and you do the same. And you do so despite the rule of Christ plainly saying the long hair is given by God for women, rather than the Jewish-made tradition of head veils.

But to Paul it was not a tradition but the word is teaching or rodinance and it is given to all teh churches!

You seem to fixate on custom , create a straw man and love to beat it.

And so you acknowledge it was a tradition Jews made for themselves, like many others not in the law, and you do the same. And you do so despite the rule of Christ plainly saying the long hair is given by God for women, rather than the Jewish-made tradition of head veils.

No I teach it for this reason:

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. all the churches taught women have to have man made coverings in the assembly of saints.

You reject the Scripture I've given twice showing God gives hair for it to women. And you give no Scripture of old to justify an old Jewish tradition not found in the law of Moses.

Yes womens hair is given for a covering. but it is not the covering they need when they go to church!

Hiar covering is: peribolaion
Covering for church is: katakalyptō

YOu say I am a heretic, but Paul says you are co0ntentious!

 

[Always Believing]

But to Paul it was not a tradition but the word is teaching or rodinance and it is given to all teh churches!

The tradition was Gentile and Jewish only, just as many other traditions not found in the law of Moses. Paul was not bringing in a new tradition of Christ, but replacing an old tradition of men.

The NT ordinance of the church by Christ, is to supplant the tradition of men with the rule of Christ, that hair is now given to women for covering the head.

Instead of telling women to cover their heads with veils like Jews, just tell them to keep their hair long enough to cover their heads, and God the Head is honored according to His word, rather than pseudo-honored by the traditions of Jewish and Christian men.

You seem to fixate on custom , create a straw man and love to beat it.

You're the one teaching old customs of men for rule of Christ, not me.

Do you not think it strange that people of God can be so devoted to their own favorite little customs, that they would crucify Christ over them for not keeping them?

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

Pride. Your tradition of forcing veils on women's heads is a vain show in the flesh.

No I teach it for this reason:

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

The custom is not being contentious about it. My wife doesn't come to your church without a veil, and you don't come to mine demanding veils.

At this time we disagree on your tradition.

all the churches taught women have to have man made coverings in the assembly of saints.

Only the Corinthians so far as we know. But for any others that accept the new ordinance of Christ, and simply have their long hair for a covering, then they were probably more than glad to do so.

Women can wear veils whenever they want, but so long as their hair is long enough, then God is honored. And her hair is given as a glory to her. Your tradition thinks it's a greater honor and glory than God's word given to women.

Yes womens hair is given for a covering. but it is not the covering they need when they go to church!

Ha! And there you have it. It's the manner of all false teachers with men's special little customs, to then go on and judge others accordingly.

Speaking of it as necessary obedience to Christ, you are now accusing other Christian women of dishonoring God, by not obeying your own special little tradition.....!

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

You fulfill this prophecy perfectly, by holding up your own tradition above that which is written, and then by pride accuse others of being less honorable than yourself, who refuse your tradition.

Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

It's the way of all sects separating themselves from the common faith and body of Christ.

Hiar covering is: peribolaion
Covering for church is: katakalyptō

Covering for praying and prophesying is both, which includes anywhere there is praying and prophesying. Unless of course you're one of those Christians that only prays in church buildings.

Peribolaion is used expressly with long hair to make no doubt, that the long hair is the covering veil or wrap given by God to honor the husband and Christ.

YOu say I am a heretic,

I say your tradition is heresy. There are plenty of heresies, that some don't even know are heresies. it doesn't make them a heretic.

The need of rejecting heretics is only those that use their heresies to separate themselves from the body of Christ, and false accuse others according to their heresy.

but Paul says you are co0ntentious!

Disagreeing with your tradition is no more contentious than you teaching it. I.e. it takes two to tango.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

The tradition was Gentile and Jewish only, just as many other traditions not found in the law of Moses. Paul was not bringing in a new tradition of Christ, but replacing an old tradition of men.

The NT ordinance of the church by Christ, is to supplant the tradition of men with the rule of Christ, that hair is now given to women for covering the head.

Instead of telling women to cover their heads with veils like Jews, just tell them to keep their hair long enough to cover their heads, and God the Head is honored according to His word, rather than pseudo-honored by the traditions of Jewish and Christian men.

I could accept that if Paul used the same word for head covering and hair as a covering. But he didn't so the ordinance Paul gave i Corinth. stands.

The covering women are to have in the assembly of saints is a man made covering to honor god and their husbands.

You forget an important verse:

6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

Paul is saying the following in this pone little passage.
1. If a woman does not cover her head with a man made covering
2. Let her be given a hair cut or shaved.
3. But as it is a shame for a woman to have a short haircut or be shaved- let her have a man made head covering in church.

If hair was the covering and a woman does not have long hair- she need not have a haircut, or be shaved (maybe)
It presupposes she has long hair, though not all Gentile cultures had women with long hair. but once again Paul is not making an argument for how culture is to be, but how believing women are to be clothed on the head during church.

And as you declared, it was not in the Mosaic Law for Jewish women to have a covering during worship time in synagogue, so Paul is not appealing to past teaching, but is presenting a new command for the church to obey.

 

[Always Believing]

And as you declared, it was not in the Mosaic Law for Jewish women to have a covering during worship time in synagogue, so Paul is not appealing to past teaching,

That is exactly correct. He is dealing with old traditions of men, whether Jew or Gentile. God does not appeal to traditions of men, to make His commandments.

Nope! It is not putting oneself back under the Mosaic Law.

Exactly. It was never an ordinance of God to honor Him, but only tradition of pagans and Jews.

This is the law of how church should be run.

Perfect. And so God has taken a tradition of pagans and Jews, and made it commandment for His people of the NT.

But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Christ was crucified for defying the traditions and commandments of men taught for His word, and now He makes such traditions His word.

It's no longer vain worship to teach men's commandments and traditions for law of God, because now the Lord Himself is making them doctrine for Himself.

but is presenting a new command for the church to obey.

And there we go: a former traditional commandment of man is now made new commandment for the people of God, where there was no such commandment of the Lord, nor did He ever even both speak of it.

It came not into His mind, that head-wraps honor Him, until longer after men thought of it for Him.

Maybe you would also do away with teh ordinance that pastors can be polygamists or married multiple times as well?

This would be the first time in Scripture, where a tradition of man, that is never even acknowledged by God before, is now made into a commandment of God after the fact.

God is now making His commandments from traditions of men, that never even came it into His mind before:

They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind.

Headwraps may not rise to the level of sacrificing daughters to the fire of Baal, but it certainly sacrificing daughters to the tradition of pagans.

Conclusion: This is the exact spirit of the Jews, who still say they have right to institute traditions for doctrine of God, and if those traditions remain long enough in time, then men must accept them, because God has adopted them. God and men working hand in hand to make doctrines and commandments of God.

God does not appropriate traditions and commandments of men for His own doctrine.

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

God is not moved to make commandments by the will of man.

Paul is accused of being the first prophet and apostle to ever 'appeal' to an old tradition of man, so as to make it ordinance and commandment of Christ.