Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Crushmaster

Discussion Topic - Head Coverings.

Recommended Posts




John, by no means am I excusing young women with short hair, but when you took note of who had very short hair and who did not, did you note their age? Seems to me that when I've ever looked around at church, I've rarely seen an elderly woman with long hair.....as in shoulder length and longer. Most have short hair that just touches their collar. I know that many people would not say that they would mistake any of these women though, for a man. However, the Bible says that the older women should teach the younger women.....and I think in this area, they have. Short hair is short hair, no matter what the style is. I think I will go hide for now. :hide:


No doubt many of the women with very short hair were older women and often these were the women doing women's Bible studies, teaching Sunday school or holding another position in the church. I agree these women are presenting a bad example to the younger women and by doing this they are failing to properly teach the younger women.

I agree that no matter the style, short hair is short hair. I've heard some women try to excuse short hair by saying they have it styled differently than menn wear their hair. Scripture says men are to have short hair and women long hair, not that they can have the reverse if they style it a certain way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CPR - we are asked in these verses if nature itself doesn't teach that it's a shame for men to have long hair. What many people ask is - what is long hair and how does nature teach that? Well, this is just my opinion, but I've never heard any explanation that makes sense like this. That is the fact that there is a natural hairline on our heads. Trace it around, and you will see - it is there on anyone. The hairline is above the ears (actually a good bit!) and stops at the top of the neck. My personal belief is that if a man's hair goes below that, nature is teaching us that it is a shame to him. By the reverse, if a woman's hair follows the pattern of a man's, it is too short. In other words, the ears and the neck ought to be covered (at least, the length ought to be able to cover it - pulled into a bun it can still be long). If the hair does not cover the neck, it is too short.

I can't say that women whose hair comes to their collar is too short (especially since I know women who cannot grow it any longer, no matter how they try...). Actually, if you have a man with a manly hair cut and a woman with her hair fixed nicely - and it comes to the collar - it is obvious from the back who is the man and who is the woman. However, I will say that, if it is possible to grow it longer, I believe it should be - so there is no doubt about it. I believe that the verse speaking of her head not being covered is referring to her neck being uncovered...

~~~~
Paul clarifies that the covering is a woman's hair in the 15th verse - and to say that it has to be a scarf or hat is adding to scripture (although, if a woman's husband wants her to or has no problem with her wearing them, go for it!) Hair is her glory, just as she is the glory of the man. My husband loves my hair long - it comes to mid back usually. But he also knows that I want my hair to look nice, so he allows me to get it shaped up every few weeks. It never gets any shorter than my shoulder blades though. I am his glory - and one of the ways I show it is through my hair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul clearly shows in verse 6 that the hair cannot be the covering,

If a woman have no hair, let her also be shaved bald

I dont agree with you - because Paul says clearly in verse 15 that her hair is her covering. If her hair is above her neck, she has no covering, so she might as well be shaved. Both verses work together, not against each other. If the hair CANNOT be a covering, Paul lied in verse 15.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul clearly shows in verse 6 that the hair cannot be the covering,

If a woman have no hair, let her also be shaved bald


If you go literally, neither would make sense as if she doesn't have any hair, there would be nothing to shave bald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


If you go literally, neither would make sense as if she doesn't have any hair, there would be nothing to shave bald.


Exactly!
1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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 covering were truly the hair, the only way this verse could be understood would be

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) For if the woman have no hair, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her have hair.


It would make no sense whatsoever if the covering were hair. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Paul lied in verse 15. Nice. And it doesn't say "hair," in verse 6 - it says covering. If her hair isn't the proper length, she isn't covered. There is no contradiction between the two verses, but if you are correct, there is.

HC,
What other explanation can be given when verse 6 clearly shows that the covering cannot be hair?

After all how can one also be shaved bald who already has no hair?

Could it be that Paul meant in verse 15 that the hair was given 'to be covered'?

I am in no way saying that Paul lied in verse 15. But Scripture must interpret Scripture and hair does not fit as a covering in verse 6

And Paul does not say 'if her hair isn't the proper length she isn't covered, he says 'if she has no covering, let her also be shorn.' If covering here means hair, then what Paul said is nonsense. Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


HC,
What other explanation can be given when verse 6 clearly shows that the covering cannot be hair?
How about the one I already gave - that her neck is to be covered with her hair
After all how can one also be shaved bald who already has no hair?

Could it be that Paul meant in verse 15 that the hair was given 'to be covered'? Her hair was given to be covered? No - I imagine Paul, who was really quite good at words, would have said that instead of saying that her hair was given "for a covering." for and to be mean different things...

I am in no way saying that Paul lied in verse 15. But Scripture must interpret Scripture and hair does not fit as a covering in verse 6 Yes, Scripture must interpret Scripture...and verse 15 specifies that a woman's hair is given to her for a covering...not "to be covered."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what exactly is 'proper length'?

My aunt's hair is about 19 inches long, while my cousin's is nearly 3 foot long. Is one of them not covered properly?

I would venture to say that 19 inches long covers the neck, no? I don't know - by your definition, is one of them not covered properly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



So, explain verse 6. Not on the premise of short hair, for that is not what Paul said. Explain it for how it says.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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 her hair is her covering (which I don't believe) 'if the woman be not covered' can only mean one thing... she is bald. How does one shear one who has no hair?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


So, explain verse 6. Not on the premise of short hair, for that is not what Paul said. Explain it for how it says.

1 Corinthians 11:6 (KJV) 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 her hair is her covering (which I don't believe) 'if the woman be not covered' can only mean one thing... she is bald. How does one shear one who has no hair?


It's the degree to which the hair is covering, perhaps. In other words, if she's going to have short hair, she might as well just have it be shaved. But really, she should have it longer as a covering......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is, it is legalistic to say one has to have hair 'x' amount of length, since Paul did not say who long is long and how short is short.

It is wrong to say the hair must cover completely one's neck when Paul never said how long he meant. Some women are not able to grow hair long at all due to genetic influence. Does this then mean they are to shave themselves completely because they do not meet your standard for what a woman's hair length is to be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



It's the degree to which the hair is covering, perhaps. In other words, if she's going to have short hair, she might as well just have it be shaved. But really, she should have it longer as a covering......

But Paul did not say if she have a short covering, he said if she have no covering. Your theory of it being short or long fails when he says no covering. No means none at all.

And Paul does not say what he means by covering. Covering what? Her ears? Her neck? Her back? He does not say neck, so it is wrong to assume that he meant such. In the same light, he did not say backside, so maybe all women should wear their hair like Crystal Gayle.

Many women get headaches when they wear long hair. What is the best solution there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most women who get headaches from their hair have hair waaaay below their waists. Is that necessary? No, of course not.

Paul did say what he meant by covering: verse 15 is quite clear on that.

Sorry, standing - but there are indications in the wording that it's something we are taught in nature - and, again, I point out the natural hair line...There are times in the Bible that the word naked is used - and it means (in context) not completely clothed. I believe it's the same thing here. There is no covering if it's not long enough (and it's not legalistic to suggest that the neck needs to be covered: there has been no link to salvation here, so let's not go there, okay?). Therefore, if it's not long enough, it may as well be shorn (cut even shorter) or shaved.

And, standing, I did explain what I meant more than once. And I've said it was my opinion. Based on BOTH verses, not just one. You are ignoring verse 15, and then trying to change the wording. You're the one who is saying women need something besides their hair to be covered - so you have to answer your own question as to whether the ladies in your family are properly covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most women who get headaches from their hair have hair waaaay below their waists. Is that necessary? No, of course not.

Paul did say what he meant by covering: verse 15 is quite clear on that.

Sorry, standing - but there are indications in the wording that it's something we are taught in nature - and, again, I point out the natural hair line...There are times in the Bible that the word naked is used - and it means (in context) not completely clothed. I believe it's the same thing here. There is no covering if it's not long enough (and it's not legalistic to suggest that the neck needs to be covered: there has been no link to salvation here, so let's not go there, okay?). Therefore, if it's not long enough, it may as well be shorn (cut even shorter) or shaved.

And, standing, I did explain what I meant more than once. And I've said it was my opinion. Based on BOTH verses, not just one. You are ignoring verse 15, and then trying to change the wording. You're the one who is saying women need something besides their hair to be covered - so you have to answer your own question as to whether the ladies in your family are properly covered.
You are inserting your own definition of long into the text. Paul does not say long means to cover the neck wholly... that is your definition of long. As was pointed out, some cannot grow their hair that long. If we are to accept your theory, then those who are not able to grow their hair long should be shaved bald.

Why? Is it their fault their hair doesn't grow? What about aged women whose hair begins to thin and fall out? Are we to yield to HC and shave them bald because their hair is not to HC's specifications?

Yes, it is being legalistic.

And Paul did not say the covering in verse 6 was meant to cover the neck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are inserting your own definition of long into the text. Paul does not say long means to cover the neck wholly... that is your definition of long. As was pointed out, some cannot grow their hair that long. If we are to accept your theory, then those who are not able to grow their hair long should be shaved bald.

Why? Is it their fault their hair doesn't grow? What about aged women whose hair begins to thin and fall out? Are we to yield to HC and shave them bald because their hair is not to HC's specifications?

Yes, it is being legalistic.

And Paul did not say the covering in verse 6 was meant to cover the neck.

No, I'm not inserting anything because I have stated all along that it is my OPINION. Something you can't seem to catch in all of the posts in which I stated that. There's a lot that isn't mentioned in that scripture, and there are a number of things which are and have been debated for many a year.

If you had read my previous posts, you would see that I mentioned ladies whose hair doesn't grow. You don't have to yield to me on anything - personally, I don't care how long or short your wife's hair is! Nor am I worried about the hair of other women. Mine is what I have to worry about. If I had a daughter, hers too. And if a woman asks me, I will venture my opinion. The decision is her head's though, not mine. There is no need to be snide and assume that I am declaring absolute truth (like you are trying to do) when I've stated otherwise.

And, no, it is not legalistic. Legalism is adding to salvation. My opinion has nothing to do with it. It's so easy to throw the word legalistic around when someone advocates standards. That's a shame.

How many times do I need to say that I know that Paul doesn't indicate what long is? Surely once should be enough...and I know Paul didn't say anything about covering the neck. That's OPINION. Should I say it again? OPINION. Mine. Do I teach it as gospel truth? No. Opinion. But it is based on the idea of "nature."

And you've never answered whether or not those ladies are properly covered according to your definition...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. 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.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   2 Members, 0 Anonymous, 41 Guests (See full list)

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...