Please Argue with me about Head Coverings

[Hidden In Him]

Well again, this seems to be suggesting that the woman's glory is her hair, whereas I think Paul was saying it was her submission. Under the above definition, all women would be responsible to hide their hair, i.e their glory.

So not to be confusing, Paul did say that a wife's long hair is a glory to her, but this is in the context of it being a sign of her submitting to her husband.

4 Every husband praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. 5 But every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head... 10 For this reason the wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head... 15 If a wife has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.

 

[farouk]

@FluffyYellowDuck 5 pages already...

 

[quietthinker]

Here is the deal.

I stumbled on old pictures and felt guilty for giving up my covering. Honestly I quit out of pride and I was afraid I wouldn't be ever seen as marriage potential because of it. There, I said it.

And I can't change my mind and I have convictions, and every argument that I know of I have the answer to already, so I need you guys to argue with me and see if someone can change my mind.

It will take me a few hours to get back but I'll contest any responses- unless someone has one I can't deny.

Warning: I spent years studying this.

The whole deal makes no sense to me if in Jesus there is neither male or female.
If a woman wants to shave her head, so be it....I see no shame in it......and why should there be.
I have no idea why some women today consider this cultural hangover as a serious matter.

 

[Hidden In Him]

The whole deal makes no sense to me if in Jesus there is neither male or female.

In Christ there is no male or female, but in the world there most certainly is. In the same breath he said there were no "bondmen or free," but they continued to operate under those societal designations in everyday life. And there were most certainly still distinctions being made within the churches between husbands and wives, and how each played separate roles in the marriage relationship.

 

[DuckieLady]

Well, I think the glory comes through the act of submission; that each is freely willing to submit, and so honor the one above him or her by doing so.


Well again, this seems to be suggesting that the woman's glory is her hair, whereas I think Paul was saying it was her submission. Under the above definition, all women would be responsible to hide their hair, i.e their glory.

What you are actually getting into with that teaching is that the beauty of women should be something they don't seek to flaunt, which is a separate thing, IMO; separate teaching. It is well-supported in scripture, however.

Right but you're not just doing it for the sake of it, down to Moses removing his covering it goes way back. That's mentioned somewhere in Corinthians too, but can't remember what part.

But most of all it is a symbol of obedience to Gods angels that she is in submission to Gods natural order and this is just my thought after, keep in mind just my belief- that symbol of obedience as a sign to the angels, increases her protection.

 

[Lambano]

Does this mean you shouldn't pray while taking a shower and washing your hair?

 

[farouk]

Does this mean you shouldn't pray while taking a shower and washing your hair?

Well, don't get electrocuted...

 

[Lambano]

The whole deal makes no sense to me if in Jesus there is neither male or female.
If a woman wants to shave her head, so be it....I see no shame in it......and why should there be.
I have no idea why some women today consider this cultural hangover as a serious matter.

Since we're talking Galatians...

It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Galatians 5:1

 

[Hidden In Him]

But most of all it is a symbol of obedience to Gods angels that she is in submission to Gods natural order and this is just my thought after, keep in mind just my belief- that symbol of obedience as a sign to the angels, increases her protection.

Essentially, yes. There are two ways to interpret the phrase, "For the angel's sake." One is that they once lusted after women in Old Testament times, and since married women are often beautiful, the angels should not be tempted. The other more likely interpretation, however, is that angels watched over the people of God and reported to Him when some were in sin, at which time God might pronounce judgment upon them that the angels would then carry out.

This is likely why Paul was giving the warning. No head covering for a beautiful married woman back then was essentially like a sign of rebellion, and was tempting other MEN in the congregation to sin. It not only exposed her beauty but practically advertised, "Under new management, and open for business."

 

[Waiting on him]

Right but you're not just doing it for the sake of it, down to Moses removing his covering it goes way back. That's mentioned somewhere in Corinthians too, but can't remember what part.

But most of all it is a symbol of obedience to Gods angels that she is in submission to Gods natural order and this is just my thought after, keep in mind just my belief- that symbol of obedience as a sign to the angels, increases her protection.

Revelation 2:1 KJV
[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Why would John be commanded to write an epistle to an Angel?

 

[farouk]

Essentially, yes. There are two ways to interpret the phrase, "For the angel's sake." One is that they once lusted after women in Old Testament times, and since married women are often beautiful, the angels should not be tempted. The other more likely interpretation, however, is that angels watched over the people of God and reported to Him when some were in sin, at which time God might pronounce judgment upon them that the angels would then carry out.

This is likely why Paul was giving the warning. No head covering for a beautiful married woman back then was essentially like a sign of rebellion, and was tempting other MEN in the congregation to sin. It not only exposed her beauty but practically advertised, "Under new management, and open for business."

I can see that angels are 'ministering spirits' (Hebrews 1). Some of the implications of 'open for business' are hard to get one's mind around.....

 

[farouk]

Revelation 2:1 KJV
[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Why would John be commanded to write an epistle to an Angel?

I've long thought it refers to the spiritual element within the local church...

 

[DuckieLady]

Revelation 2:1 KJV
[1] Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write; These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks;
Why would John be commanded to write an epistle to an Angel?

I can't answer this to the interpretation that you desire, I'm not Catholic. I apologize

 

[farouk]

@Waiting on him '; @Hidden In Him PS: I guess angels as 'ministering spirits' and 'spiritual ministry' are close meanings.

 

[quietthinker]

13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Since it says "judge for yourself", I judge it is proper for a woman to pray with her head uncovered. But this is your call, not mine.

Verse 15 is interesting. It says your hair is your covering. The only time my wife wore a covering in church was when she was undergoing chemo treatments and had no hair. So wear your hair long.

My comment pertains to vs 14....how does nature teach you that it is a dishonour for a man to have long hair?

In my picture here from a couple of years ago my hair is in a pony tail reaching my lower back. I'm not homosexual nor did I ever consider myself dishonoured and now that I have it clipped short I don't consider my self with more honour. Personally I think the fashion of the day must of got into Paul's likes and dislikes to the point of giving it a religious overlay unless Paul was talking about men being effeminate (homosexual)

 

[Hidden In Him]

I can see that angels are 'ministering spirits' (Hebrews 1). Some of the implications of 'open for business' are hard to get one's mind around.....

Think of it as if a wife suddenly stopped wearing her wedding ring and started dressing much more seductively, sort of like testing the waters.

Same thing. Not wearing a head covering back then was essentially "advertising" in the same way. Hence the prohibition.

 

[Waiting on him]

@Waiting on him '; @Hidden In Him PS: I guess angels as 'ministering spirits' and 'spiritual ministry' are close meanings.

Pretty obvious isn’t it?

 

[DuckieLady]

My comment pertains to vs 14....how does nature teach you that it is a dishonour for a man to have long hair?

In my picture here from a couple of years ago my hair is in a pony tail reaching my lower back. I'm not homosexual nor did I ever consider myself dishonoured and now that I have it clipped short I don't consider my self with more honour. Personally I think the fashion of the day must of got into Paul's like and dislikes to the point of giving it a religious overlay unless Paul was talking about men being effeminate (homosexual)

That portion doesnt make sense to me, given Samson and Hannah's promise Samuel would never be shaven.

 

[farouk]

Think of it as if a wife suddenly stopped wearing her wedding ring and started dressing much more seductively, sort of like testing the waters.

Same thing. Not wearing a head covering back then was essentially "advertising" in the same way. Hence the prohibition.

I guess my thought is that the venerable great-grandmothers of today: in the mid-60s the hems of their skirts were up.

Then after a few years they were down.

Then they were up again.

Then - like the Grand Old Duke of York - they were neither up not down, or both, or whatever.

But this is not an infallible guide to whether the Christians among them were spiritually minded or not....

 

[Waiting on him]

I can't answer this to the interpretation that you desire, I'm not Catholic. I apologize

Maybe we should invite a Catholic even a Roman one to the party I’ll bet @Marymog could tell you why the nuns cover their heads?