Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Discussion Topic - Head Coverings.


Recommended Posts

  • Members

The hairline idea doesn't make any sense to me. I've never heard anyone think they had long hair or anyone say another had long hair if their hair was no longer than what would just cover the neck.

Rather it would seem that nature teaches that long is obviously long while short is obviously short.

Besides, we all *know* Jesus' hair covered His neck; just look at all the portraits (or are those paintings) of Him in churches and homes! :icon_rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Besides, we all *know* Jesus' hair covered His neck; just look at all the portraits (or are those paintings) of Him in churches and homes! :icon_rolleyes:

I think that comes (well, at least, for some people...) thinking that since He was called a Nazarene (from Nazareth) they think He was a Nazarite, which He wasn't (confusion of terms...?). John the Immerser, however, was.

That's my theory, anyway.
Legalism is not just something added to Salvation. It can be adding any rule or guideline that is not found in the Word of God.

She's not being legalistic no matter what your definition of that word is. The Bible clearly teaches women are to have long hair and men short, no matter whether hair is woman's covering or not.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14. Edited by Crushmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I think that comes (well, at least, for some people...) thinking that since He was called a Nazarene (from Nazareth) they think He was a Nazarite, which He wasn't (confusion of terms...?). John the Immerser, however, was.

That's my theory, anyway.

God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.


That's a good theory and I've encountered many that proclaim Jesus had long hair because he was a Nazarite. They they typically point out Samsons hair.

This, coupled with the idea that people in ancient times must have all had long hair (not sure where they got that idea), the manmade images of Jesus typically depict Him with hair far too long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that people should also take into account the hairstyle that is flattering to their face shape and facial features, as well as they type of hair that they have.


The Bible says women are to have long hair and men are to have short hair. Their style is not the issue here. So long as their hair is long for women or short for men, they can then style it feminine or masculine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


I think that comes (well, at least, for some people...) thinking that since He was called a Nazarene (from Nazareth) they think He was a Nazarite, which He wasn't (confusion of terms...?). John the Immerser, however, was.

That's my theory, anyway.

She's not being legalistic no matter what your definition of that word is. The Bible clearly teaches women are to have long hair and men short, no matter whether hair is woman's covering or not.
God bless,
Joel ><>.
2 Chronicles 7:14.
How long is long? 4 inches? 5 inches? a foot?
Are not 5 inches longer than 4? Edited by Standing Firm In Christ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

How long is long? 4 inches? 5 inches? a foot?
Are not 5 inches longer than 4?


Since the Scriptures don't give a specific number you are not going to get anyone here to give you a number. They will only give a very vague answer that you can't disprove (or prove for that matter). An answer like: "you'll know it when you see it" or "long is to the collar," etc.

I suspect that if God wanted us to know the specific number, he would have given us instructions like "A woman's hair should be long and a man's hair short. Short hair is anything under a cubit and long hair is over a cubit."

As the specific number isn't given by God, it is up to each person's conviction from the Holy Spirit. Or, you could belong to a Church with a very domineering Pastor who will tell you how to wear your hair. That way is easier in the end. You don't have to pray and seek the Holy Spirit's conviction, you can just settle for the "man of God" to be your decider. I wonder how a Christian answer's to Jesus in that day. "Honest Lord, I followed Pastor Leader and he told me to wear it this way."

Perhaps this wasn't really a big deal to the Lord and thus he didn't give a precise standard? Perhaps it is based upon the accepted cultural norm at any given time? Perhaps this was just guidance from Paul given the local customs (similar to one or two other areas where Paul indicated it was not a command from the Lord)? Edited by trc123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If a woman's hair isn't obviously long then it's too short. If a man's hair isn't obviously short then it's too long.

Simply following that rule would solve many problems. If we are in doubt as to whether our hair is long or short enough then it isn't.

Besides all this, our hair should not be a matter of what we prefer to call long or short, but as to what gives a proper testimony to others. We are to consider others above ourselves and give no occasion for others to stumble and avoid the appearance of evil. Our hair should be obviously long or short for the sake of others, not only so we can believe our hair is right in our own eyes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think that the point is, we should be able so identify an man and a woman. This also applies to clothes which should easily identify a man or a woman.


So it is a subjective standard, depending upon the one doing the evaluating and not an objective standard?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

IMHO, 1 Cor. 11 is to be interpreted in its cultural context. As are the passages in the old testament which say that a woman is not to wear men's clothing. Many people interpret men's clothing to be pants, but when the passage was written, people were usually all wearing skirts. 1 Cor. 11 says that it is a shame for a woman to be uncovered and a shame for a man to have long hair. Notice it does not say sin, but shame. The point of 1 Cor. 11 and the OT texts on clothing is that women are not to make themselves appear as men and men as women. The covering in 1 Cor. 11 is a sign for angels that the woman is married. Now, why would God's angels need a sign to know someone is married? The angels in this case are pastors, as in Revelation. It is for people to know that this woman is married. In our culture, we have wedding rings for that instead of a cloth over someone's head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've heard so many different (some strange, but most pretty sensible) interpretations of this passage. I think it is pretty obvious from the passage (v. 15) that a woman's hair, which "is given her for a covering," "counts" as a "head-covering." I think it is also obvious that the ancient Corinthian women's custom was to wear an additional covering of some sort (Mideastern-type veil/headdress) to worship. Paul appeals to this sense of custom when he says in verse 13, "Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray to God uncovered?"

I don't think God intends us to agonize over this particular passage...just to do some evaluation. Verse 7 says, "the woman is the glory of the man." Verse 8 goes on to emphasize that the woman was created for the man. If these things are true, then the woman need only consult her husband (assuming he is saved and they worship together) as to how he thinks her hair should look (how long, etc.), as he thinks about this passage. We get so caught up with terms like "long" and "short" that we miss the real message of the passage: that women should show by their appearance that they are in submission to their husbands and church leaders. In ancient times, the distinctive "look" was the wearing of actual head coverings made out of fabric. Today, in American culture, it has more to do with hair (which is given to women as a covering also).

We have to face it: "long" and "short" are really comparative terms, and I usually think of those terms in relation to how others compare with me. IOW, my hair falls right at chin length, but I don't think of my hairstyle as a "short" hairstyle, because I've seen plenty of other women whose hair is "shorter" than mine...and mine has body, fullness, and shape, and flips out at the bottom. No one could mistake my hairstyle for a man's hairstyle, although many men I've seen do have longer hair than mine. Not saying my hairstyle is "more godly" than those who wear their hair shorter; those women, like me, can think of women who wear their hair even shorter! etc. Surely there is a point at which it gets ridiculous...and it's my husband's job (mine, too) to see that I don't get to that point.

EDIT: I think that most women in our culture sense the "need" to cover their heads...There's a bit of a difference between male and female cancer patients who have lost their hair due to chemo treatments, and I don't think it's all due to vanity...just cultural expectations. Our culture doesn't consider it "proper" (for lack of a better word) for women to appear in public bald. Every female chemo patient I've known buys either a wig or hats or scarves or something to cover her head. Also, most women under "normal" circumstances do not suffer from hair loss as aging men do. Maybe that's part of what Paul meant when he said that the woman's hair was "given to her" to act as a covering. I know, I'm rambling... Time for bed.

Edited by Annie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The cultural context is very important in these verses. Temple prostitutes of that day wore their hair short or shaved, and no artificial headcovering. (Short being above the nape of the neck in that day...)

Paul was adjuring the women in the Corinthian church not to appear as temple prostitutes. Verse 6 could have been referring to a veil covering the hair, but it was also definitely the hair length that was in his mind (if we look at the historical context).

As to absolutely needing a scarf or something to cover, this passage is the only one which references any type of covering. Other passages in which women's appearance is mentioned talk about broided hair...I think it would be pretty obvious that if scripture is remarking on not wearing elaborate hair styles: the hair was seen! :runforhills:

John - I realize that you don't agree with my ideas, and that's fine! But the interesting thing is I've since heard there are others who have come to the same conclusion. Absolute standard by which to measure all women? No, but it is something to think about.

Long is long and short is short - but the big debate has always been (at least by many who want to see men with hair below their ears and women with hair above them...) what is long and what is short?

The passage, as Annie pointed out, deals with women being the glory of their men. It deals with submission to our head as well (both male and female). And I think trc hit the nail on the head when he said it was an individual thing: each man is the head of his home, and it is up to him to lead that home in a godly manner. My husband may want my hair longer than, say, Annie's husband. So, my hair would be longer (unless Annie preferred hers longer and her hubby didn't care...).

Testimony is vital - but there would be no real testimony if the heart issue that Paul is addressing here (submission to the proper head) isn't dealt with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...