• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Women and Covered Hair

sixth_heretic

sixth_heretic

Member
Should a Woman Cover her head when she Prays? Lets see what scripture says.

1Cor.11
[3] But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
[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.

According to this scripture yes women should cover their heads.

How often should a woman cover her head?

1Thes.5
[17] Pray without ceasing.

So if all of us do not pray with out ceaseing then women should never be seen with out a head covering on.

Matt.5
[19] Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

God Bless
 
you get me hebrew/aramaic originals instead of greek to latin to english translation, and then we'll talk turkey
 
Try the the lamsa. it is translated from the aramaic of the peshitta. It says the same thing.
 
^_^ said:
you get me hebrew/aramaic originals instead of greek to latin to english translation, and then we'll talk turkey
Click to expand...

Translation direct from Aramaic to English: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Messiah; and the head of the wife is her husband; and the head of Messiah is Elohim. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head; for she is equal to her whose head is shaven."

For what it's worth.

David
 
I think that a woman's covering is her hair-- But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. 1 Cor 11:15 sorry I don't know about it in OT!
 
Thought I'd drop in here on this one. Because the Bible was written long ago, translating it isn't as easy as just picking it up and reading it. There are many things that us 21st Century readers need to know and carefully weigh to fully understand it. It's not so much an issue of translation, but the issues of context, setting, culture, etc. The letters, stories, and poems were written assuming the readers knew certain things such as customs, laws (sometimes Roman, other times Hebrew, or other), writing styles, etc. Even a reader from AD 100 should not dare to bob around and take a verse or phrase from here and there to formulate a doctrine. Doctrines are principles that are TAUGHT in scripture as the theme, not something "rounded up" from over here and over there. Doctrines are also generally seen from Genesis to Revelation, often repeated in different themes and contexts at least 5 or 6 times throughout. Many doctrines, laws, rules, etc are seen dozens of times in scripture.

I think it is quite likely that Maria is on the right track: a woman's hair represents the covering that her husband is called to be for her. Her hair is her glory just as Jesus is "God's glory in the flesh," and that Jesus is the church's (followers of Christ) "Head and Covering." This fits with what scripture teaches from Genesis to Revelation: When Adam and Eve sinned, God told them He would send a blood Sacrifice for them to "cover" their sin. That theme does not change throughout the Bible. It is quite likely that in Roman times for reasons we do not understand, that Paul ordered head coverings for women for cultural reasons. Think about it....Why wouldn't he? At that time in history, women were property owned by men, could not vote, rarely owned land, and were strictly FORBIDDEN from even stepping into the church or temple. Is it so hard to imagine that Paul was saying: "If we have women coming into the church, and if they're going to speak or pray out loud or anything that would draw attention, let's have them cover their heads and hair to minimize the obvious distraction. We don't want to shock everyone!" ??

I recommend a really good book on interpretting scripture and any other ancient books:
"How to Read the Bible for all it's Worth" by Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart [Zondervan]
This books teaches you how to approach scripture and other literature and how to understand the author's meaning. It helps you put what you read into the context of how it was written. I strongly suggest it for anyone who loves to read the Bible and wants to understand it better. By the way, the book does NOT tell you how or what to believe!

Tom
 
Marichu said:
I think that a woman's covering is her hair-- But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for [her] hair is given her for a covering. 1 Cor 11:15
Click to expand...

I believe the entire passage (1 Cor. 11:3-15) has to do specifically with relational authority. Consider verse 3: "And I wish you to know that the head of every man is Messiah, and the head of every woman is the man, and the head of Messiah is Elohim."

This gives us a very specific hierarchy:

woman -> man -> Messiah -> Elohim

Clearly, in this context, the association is one of authority relationship. The woman is under the authority of the man, so the man is a head (or covering) for her. The man is under the authority of Messiah, so Messiah is a head (or covering) for him. This seems fairly clear to me when I read this.

Vs. 4 and 5 state that a man's COVERED HEAD brings shame to his head, while a woman's UNCOVERED HEAD brings shame to her head. So far, so good.

Here's where I see a problem though.

1 Cor. 11:6: "For if a woman is NOT COVERED, let her ALSO BE SHORN. But if it is a SHAME for a woman to be SHORN or SHAVED, let her be covered."

If we say that long hair is a head covering, then what exactly does verse 6 mean? If the woman is not covered, she should be shaved. If hair was the covering being discussed, how could someone with hair be "not covered"? It seems clear that they are not the same thing, but rather that there is a similarity between long hair and a head covering. We know that verses 14 and 15 state that long hair on a man is a disrespect to him, while long hair on a woman is an esteem to her, yet nothing regarding being a shame to one's "head" in those verses. Paul is drawing a comparison from nature, but verse 6 prevents understanding the long hair itself as BEING the covering of man or woman.

Since the entire passage is related to authority, I think verse 10 is key: "Because of this the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the messengers."

Some might think that this is a cultural matter, but Paul reveals otherwise. It is a spiritual matter. Few Believers understand the significance of this statement regarding the angels, but regardless of what Paul is referring to, we know for certain that she is to have a "symbol of authority" on her head, and that this "symbol of authority" cannot simply be long hair, according to verse 6.
 
Since the entire passage is related to authority, I think verse 10 is key: "Because of this the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the messengers."

Some might think that this is a cultural matter, but Paul reveals otherwise. It is a spiritual matter. Few Believers understand the significance of this statement regarding the angels, but regardless of what Paul is referring to, we know for certain that she is to have a "symbol of authority" on her head, and that this "symbol of authority" cannot simply be long hair, according to verse 6.
Click to expand...
I've had that one explained there that the messengers Paul was referring to there were not 'angels' but the messengers of the gospel, ie, preachers, and the pretty women needed covered so these poor fellows who were away from their family wouldn't be tempted to violate another man's wife. After all, a fellow has needs...
 
Num.15
[38] Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them fringes in the borders of their garments throughout their generations, and that they put upon the fringe of the borders a ribband of blue:

Now in the ot the men Wore this over the shoulders while women to show their submission to the man wore it over their head. I am sure you have seen the images of biblical women with heads covered. This was part of the biblical culture and was never discussed in scripture. So all this does is show the Support for what they were wearing but not how to wear it. The only refrence for how to wear it was in corinthians. Men were not to cover their heads while women were commanded to.
 
so the pictures of Abraham and Sarah in my sunday school books when I was a kid were actually of Abraham and Sarah???? :o
 
Concerning paul when he cut his hair mariachu. He took the nazerite vow it is in number six.
 
Marichu said:
This is an article that I believe explains what i understand. I would like others to comment on it, ok?

http://www.altupc.com/altupc/articles/harbour.htm
Click to expand...

Hello Maria,

Thank you for the link. I will respond to it later.

I think that we should also remember that the Bible says that it is a "shame" for a man to have long hair. It appears that we ignore that passage from the text!
 
Scipture says nature it'self teaches that it's a shame for man to have long hair. Considering that from all appearances Paul took a Nazarite vow, what exactly is meant by that. Also consider Samson wasn't ever supposed to cut his hair, or were anyone who took the vow to cut their hair, how do we reconcile those?
Strongs says: komaō
kom-ah'-o
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.
whereas Thayers simply says:komaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to let the hair grow, have long hair
could it be speaking of hair style more than length? As in that it's a shame provable by nature for a man to wear his hair to look like a woman?
 
^_^ said:
Scipture says nature it'self teaches that it's a shame for man to have long hair. Considering that from all appearances Paul took a Nazarite vow, what exactly is meant by that. Also consider Samson wasn't ever supposed to cut his hair, or were anyone who took the vow to cut their hair, how do we reconcile those?
Strongs says: komaō
kom-ah'-o
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.
whereas Thayers simply says:komaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to let the hair grow, have long hair
could it be speaking of hair style more than length? As in that it's a shame provable by nature for a man to wear his hair to look like a woman?
Click to expand...

Here is how I reconcile it: The Nazarite Vow was an act of humility. It was not an act of vanity! (It is also interesting to note that the Greek word for "shame" comes from the same word as translated "shameful" in Romans 1) The Nazarite vow included a real vow as well. The hair was not grown arbitrarily. The Hebrews knew that when a man grew long hair it was because the man was taking a vow for a short period of time. It was not a lifestyle!

Furthermore, it is quite interesting that the only man recorded having long hair outside of the Nazarite vow was a rebel - Absalom (2 Sam 14:25-26).
 
^_^ said:
Scipture says nature it'self teaches that it's a shame for man to have long hair. Considering that from all appearances Paul took a Nazarite vow, what exactly is meant by that. Also consider Samson wasn't ever supposed to cut his hair, or were anyone who took the vow to cut their hair, how do we reconcile those?
Strongs says: komaō
kom-ah'-o
From G2864; to wear tresses of hair: - have long hair.
whereas Thayers simply says:komaō
Thayer Definition:
1) to let the hair grow, have long hair
could it be speaking of hair style more than length? As in that it's a shame provable by nature for a man to wear his hair to look like a woman?
Click to expand...

It is specifically speaking of the length: komao comes from the root word "komee", "a head of long hair" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, Moulton, p. 236)
 
Actually, the Nazarite vow was not only a short vow, it was a life vow for some, put on them before their actual birth. John the Baptist, Samson, and I believe Samuel.
These men were not to cut their hair. Ever. Or drink wine, strong drink or consume in any form fruit of the vine.
Thus I have a hard time interpreting this verse in Corinithians as christianity traditionally has, and how it has been traditionally translated. Paul would have well understood the implications of this if indeed he was saying what people today say he had, and there's no basis for such an accusation that I can find in Scripture to say that it's a shame for man to have simply long hair. Now, I can see how it's shameful to wear the hair like a woman, same as it's shameful for a woman to put on warrior's clothes or for a warrior to put on ladies' clothes. Those are principles rooted firmly in Torah.
 
Scipture says nature it'self teaches that it's a shame for man to have long hair. Considering that from all appearances Paul took a Nazarite vow, what exactly is meant by that. Also consider Samson wasn't ever supposed to cut his hair, or were anyone who took the vow to cut their hair, how do we reconcile those?

Dude you took the arguement right out of my mouth. So I will just add this.

Lev.19
[27] Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.

Thats right it is a commandment to have long hair. The differance between this and the nazzerite vow in lev 19 27 you can cut it to one length unlike the numbers six where you can not cut it at all.
 
^_^ said:
Actually, the Nazarite vow was not only a short vow, it was a life vow for some, put on them before their actual birth. John the Baptist, Samson, and I believe Samuel.
These men were not to cut their hair. Ever. Or drink wine, strong drink or consume in any form fruit of the vine.
Thus I have a hard time interpreting this verse in Corinithians as christianity traditionally has, and how it has been traditionally translated. Paul would have well understood the implications of this if indeed he was saying what people today say he had, and there's no basis for such an accusation that I can find in Scripture to say that it's a shame for man to have simply long hair. Now, I can see how it's shameful to wear the hair like a woman, same as it's shameful for a woman to put on warrior's clothes or for a warrior to put on ladies' clothes. Those are principles rooted firmly in Torah.
Click to expand...

Hello,

Yes, there are some life long Nazarites in the Scripture. All of them have a few things in common:

1. They were called specifically to a Nazarite vow before birth.
2. They were not allowed to drink any alcoholic beverage.

Both the "temporary" Nazarite vows and the "from birth" Nazarite vows prove the point I am making. If it was normative for God's people to have long hair, these vows would not mean anything. God's Word is full of general principles that have exceptions to them. However, we should never make the exceptions to those principles the new "principle" to be followed. Paul established the general rule that a man should have short hair and a women should have long hair.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top