PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 10:29:41 GMT -5
Good stuff PG4HIM. Like it. I think only one verse can be implied as some type of covering, otherwise none can. 1Co 11:6 (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. If the woman is not covered, that means if she is not covered with long hair, which means she has short hair. And if that is the case, it says let her be, which is an action word, that is let her be shorn or shaven, and if it be a shame for her to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. We know that a woman cannot grow hair just like that, so the covering here has to be a type of veil of some kind, and this veil was not for the woman to have power on her head, but rather to hide her short hair. But I have to ask the question, which has not been answered, is having your head shaven or shorn, or being veiled still necessary today, or was it an unnecessary custom? Why do we assume that would be a veil? Why not a wig? Why not hair extensions?
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 10:36:45 GMT -5
I could accept the shaving thing as the custom Paul referred to if Paul said “you have a custom among you to shave uncovered women.” It would have been super easy for Paul to mention that little detail. I can’t swallow that Paul mixed in a bad Greek custom in the middle of his train of thought and then returned several verses later to say the custom was unbiblical.
|
|
|
Post by John on May 3, 2019 10:53:03 GMT -5
I could accept the shaving thing as the custom Paul referred to if Paul said “you have a custom among you to shave uncovered women.” It would have been super easy for Paul to mention that little detail. I can’t swallow that Paul mixed in a bad Greek custom in the middle of his train of thought and then returned several verses later to say the custom was unbiblical. I see it as a New Testament teaching, and believe it does still matter. Look how much time he took on that issue! I agree with you.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 11:16:06 GMT -5
For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread. — 2 Thessalonians 3:11-12
For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. — 1 Corinthians 1:11
Would to God ye could bear with me a little in my folly: and indeed bear with me. — 2 Corinthians 11:1
But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) — Romans 3:5
It was not in Paul’s character to let foolishness slip into his teaching that he didn’t call foolishness. He always let us know when he was calling out a bad human habit. I really can’t believe he brought up a bad custom so casually.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 11:40:17 GMT -5
The shaving-custom theory might be plausible if Paul said there was no such custom in the next sentence. “If a woman be uncovered, let her be shaved — that’s your custom, not ours.” See how easy this is? Why would it matter if a man became contentious to defend his wife’s honor, which Paul happened to think about several verses later, prompting him to say it’s a bad custom? That’s some awfully sloppy teaching on Paul’s part.
Paul said the custom thing at the end of this whole passage on cover. He’s defending his teaching. If a naysayer wants to prove him wrong on the power/cover/prophecy concept, they don’t have a leg to stand on because they don’t get to invent their own customs. He’s showing us how these well-known customs come together to show us something about prophesy in women. People who disagree with him will have to fabricate opposing precedents. Guess what? This explanation allows the passage to explain itself, doesn’t rely on secular research, and doesn’t make Paul look like an idiot.
Like John, I believe all of this is relevant to us today. Most women who lose their hair from illness or old age are using wigs/extentions/scarfs to hide it. We see it all around us.
|
|
Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on May 3, 2019 11:40:23 GMT -5
Good stuff PG4HIM. Like it. I think only one verse can be implied as some type of covering, otherwise none can. 1Co 11:6 (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. If the woman is not covered, that means if she is not covered with long hair, which means she has short hair. And if that is the case, it says let her be, which is an action word, that is let her be shorn or shaven, and if it be a shame for her to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. We know that a woman cannot grow hair just like that, so the covering here has to be a type of veil of some kind, and this veil was not for the woman to have power on her head, but rather to hide her short hair. But I have to ask the question, which has not been answered, is having your head shaven or shorn, or being veiled still necessary today, or was it an unnecessary custom?
there was a jewish law that women were not supposed to go out with their head bare. it was considered a gentile thing to have women go out head bare. i found this in John Gill's exposition. there are references there. If anyone does not have access to this literature and would like to read it let me know. esword has it for free.
I think its probably a cultural thing. which is strange that the church would adopt it unless it has to do with certain customs or laws. how it would make them look to the world being apart of the church. notice i said i think. i am not saying this as matter in factly. Honestly i do not know. i was always taught it was a cultural thing and never tried to learn more.
what i did take note of was 1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. so i take off my hat when i pray or whatever... so i guess in a way i do honor this custom myself. Perhaps there is more to this. than just a custom.
|
|
Cletus
Senior Member
Posts: 2,517
|
Post by Cletus on May 3, 2019 11:44:07 GMT -5
Good stuff PG4HIM. Like it. I think only one verse can be implied as some type of covering, otherwise none can. 1Co 11:6 (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. If the woman is not covered, that means if she is not covered with long hair, which means she has short hair. And if that is the case, it says let her be, which is an action word, that is let her be shorn or shaven, and if it be a shame for her to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. We know that a woman cannot grow hair just like that, so the covering here has to be a type of veil of some kind, and this veil was not for the woman to have power on her head, but rather to hide her short hair. But I have to ask the question, which has not been answered, is having your head shaven or shorn, or being veiled still necessary today, or was it an unnecessary custom? Why do we assume that would be a veil? Why not a wig? Why not hair extensions? this was my point about those "fancy hats"
I know this one lady who covers her head in church... she has a plain piece of fabric she covers her head with. she calls it her prayer cloth.
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 12:41:43 GMT -5
It was in Paul’s character to have to defend his conceptual teaching.
And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. — Romans 3:8
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. — 2 Peter 3:15-16
Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works: Of whom be thou ware also; for he hath greatly withstood our words. At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. — 2 Timothy 4:14-16
Which is more likely?
A) Paul got to thinking about random individuals who might be uncomfortable with an arcane Greek tradition.
B) Paul knew the cover/power concept would be opposed.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:00:50 GMT -5
Well one thing I do know is that Paul was dealing with a lot of issues in the Corinthian church, I see what people are saying, but I do not think that scriptures are always written the way we think they ought to be.
I really think he was really talking about a custom, and that is the one we see in our verses.
But anyhow I do agree with the long hair/short hair thing which was associated as being natural.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:01:41 GMT -5
So I guess on the custom part we disagree, but on the long hair/short hair stuff, we (some) agree.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:05:49 GMT -5
And I am not against someone wearing a veil or having hair extensions in and of itself, but we know that women's covering is her long hair.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:07:52 GMT -5
And I am not saying that Paul was saying that the custom was sinful, but rather just unnecessary.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:18:26 GMT -5
I think Paul was dealing with 2 main issues.
|
|
|
Post by Giller on May 3, 2019 13:34:14 GMT -5
But to the one's who believe that if a woman has short hair, that they should maybe have a veil or have a hair extension covering, until their hair grows back long, do you think that this can be considered their covering temporarily until they grow there hair long?
Or does the blood cover it, until they grow their hair long?
But what if they choose the option of being shaven?
|
|
PG4Him
Senior Member
Essay Moderator
Posts: 3,570
|
Post by PG4Him on May 3, 2019 13:52:41 GMT -5
But to the one's who believe that if a woman has short hair, that they should maybe have a veil or have a hair extension covering, until their hair grows back long, do you think that this can be considered their covering temporarily until they grow there hair long? Or does the blood cover it, until they grow their hair long? But what if they choose the option of being shaven? Can a woman prophesy in a bikini if she just repented five minutes ago? Can a drunk man prophesy while he’s still intoxicated if he repented five minutes ago? The blood can cover our sin unto forgiveness, but there’s something to be said for presenting a clean vessel.
|
|